If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"David Schwartz" wrote in message
... I think it's one of those reading of the political tea leaves sort of exercises. When Intel says that it's going to have processors ready to take advantage of 64-bit software when that software is ready, the only software that can be ready at that point is AMD64 software. Umm, no. He means 64-bit windows software. That is, software that can be made to run on a 64-bit windows platform of any kind. He doesn't say anything about binary compatibility and there's no reason to think that's important. In a literal reading yes you can make that point. However, the significance of this statement seems to require a little bit more than a literal reading. It requires a political reading. If Ottelini were just referring to any old Windows 64-bit software, then he would have been referring to Itanium, but he never mentioned Itanium. I've never seen an Intel executive miss an opportunity to promote Itanium, IA64, or whatever when referring to 64-bit software. Obviously, source code compatibility hasn't resulted in a lot of cross-platform applications coming out, for example between Itanium or Opteron. Nor between those two and any other 64-bit platform out there. The only sort of compatibility worth having is binary compatibility. That's because there's no 64-bit software market yet. That's Intel's whole point. If there's no 64-bit software market yet, then why did Intel make the Itanium? Yousuf Khan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"George Macdonald" wrote in message
... Yes the AMD servers must be quite a shock to the people at Intel who thought that AMD would never get more than a nibble at the high ASP sector. Mind you I haven't seen any firm reports that corporations are biting on Opteron - AMD *could* do a better job on "visibility". Nothing specific except anecdotal evidence that customers are clamoring for Opterons. Various articles have noted as much, without being too specific either. For example this article: http://www.techworld.com/news/index....ews&NewsID=943 It mentions: "HP didn't have any choice," says James Governor, principal analyst at research firm RedMonk. "Any market-driven organisation didn't have any choice. If HP were making its decisions based on religious arguments, then it wouldn't go anywhere near AMD. But if it's basing it on market reality, it's doing the right thing." So it seems pretty much the customer bases alone are telling these companies to go with Opteron. That was also the case for the first major OEM Opteron server from IBM last year -- they did it because their customers asked them to. Yousuf Khan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
This is a very interesting thread. I guess intel miscalculated the need for a low end 64 bit systems for home and small business users. I wonder if the introduction of Apple's low end 64 bit systems is also pushing intel? I'm sure the main focus now is opteron but these PowerPC systems by Apple really look nice also. The benchmarks on the apple site look unreal, but you never know. The benchmarks really blow the opteron away. Whatever. http://www.apple.com/xserve/ Later, Alan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:02:48 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote: snip As for IBM's "willingness" an initial (reported) payment of $46million in November '02 to fix Cu?/OI for the Opteron (but not for Barton) was surely a nice incentive.:-) pure speculation By the standards of a company like IBM or AMD, $46 million is cheap for a major technology play, and one does wonder about how things are being done at IBM these days. Possible real incentives for IBM: Volume for its East Fishkill line. Tactical/strategic move whose real target is Intel. Some manager needed $46 million to hit his revenue targets. Even the possibility that the third might be the real reason should be enough to make you think twice about owning IBM stock, unless you think someone with more strategic vision can mount a hostile takeover and stop IBM from becoming an overpriced job shopper. RM |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Spamme Now wrote:
This is a very interesting thread. I guess intel miscalculated the need for a low end 64 bit systems for home and small business users. I wonder if the introduction of Apple's low end 64 bit systems is also pushing intel? I'm sure the main focus now is opteron but these PowerPC systems by Apple really look nice also. The benchmarks on the apple site look unreal, but you never know. The benchmarks really blow the opteron away. Whatever. Right, we all know how trustworthy Apple benchmarks are. Wouldn't hold it against them to compile the Opteron/Xeon software in debug-mode, using heavy optimization on their own codes. -- Bjørn-Ove Heimsund Centre for Integrated Petroleum Research University of Bergen, Norway |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Spamme Now wrote:
Hi, This is a very interesting thread. I guess intel miscalculated the need for a low end 64 bit systems for home and small business users. Actually, Intel nailed the "need" part perfectly. Where they "miscalculated" was in assuming that demand would only be driven by need. As usual, *want* has proven to have been the determining influence on demand. I wonder if the introduction of Apple's low end 64 bit systems is also pushing intel? Intel makes widgets for the widget market. Apple makes doodads for the doodad market. What Apple does in the doodad market is pretty irrelevant to the widget market. I'm sure the main focus now is opteron but these PowerPC systems by Apple really look nice also. The benchmarks on the apple site look unreal, but you never know. The benchmarks really blow the opteron away. Whatever. http://www.apple.com/xserve/ Hardly an unbiased review. Note also that most independent benchmarks put Opteron significantly ahead of Xeon in most server benchmarks, but the few test that Apple choose puts Opteron significantly behind Xeon. Those new Apples might very well be the best dualies out there, but I'd wait for independent testing beforing trumpeting that fact to the world. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob" == Rob Stow writes:
Rob Actually, Intel nailed the "need" part perfectly. Rob Where they "miscalculated" was in assuming that demand would Rob only be driven by need. As usual, *want* has proven to have Rob been the determining influence on demand. Very well written. Need DOES NOT EQUAL Want. It is true that most business and home users will not need 64 bit software. I wonder if gaming is a Need or a Want? ;-) It does get confusing at times but I remember reading the key to an successful advertising campaign was changing a Want to a Need. Whatever Concur with the rest removed Apple benchmarks are very suspect. Later, Alan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Spamme Now" wrote in message
... This is a very interesting thread. I guess intel miscalculated the need for a low end 64 bit systems for home and small business users. I wonder if the introduction of Apple's low end 64 bit systems is also pushing intel? I'm sure the main focus now is opteron but these PowerPC systems by Apple really look nice also. The benchmarks on the apple site look unreal, but you never know. The benchmarks really blow the opteron away. Whatever. http://www.apple.com/xserve/ Yeah, but you're not the only one to think that they look unreal: http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/ Yousuf Khan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob Stow" wrote in message
... Spamme Now wrote: Hi, This is a very interesting thread. I guess intel miscalculated the need for a low end 64 bit systems for home and small business users. Actually, Intel nailed the "need" part perfectly. Where they "miscalculated" was in assuming that demand would only be driven by need. As usual, *want* has proven to have been the determining influence on demand. They are talking about servers here, so in this case, the need might actually be there too. Yousuf Khan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the link. Apple has no shame whatsoever. Unreal to believe that someone was not going to check this out! Another big whatever. Thanks, Alan "Yousuf" == Yousuf Khan writes: Yousuf "Spamme Now" wrote in message Yousuf ... This is a very interesting thread. I guess intel miscalculated the need for a low end 64 bit systems for home and small business users. I wonder if the introduction of Apple's low end 64 bit systems is also pushing intel? I'm sure the main focus now is opteron but these PowerPC systems by Apple really look nice also. The benchmarks on the apple site look unreal, but you never know. The benchmarks really blow the opteron away. Whatever. http://www.apple.com/xserve/ Yousuf Yeah, but you're not the only one to think that they look unreal: Yousuf http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/ Yousuf Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with Mobile CPU? | Cuzman | General | 0 | December 8th 04 02:39 PM |
Intel Loses Chipset Market Share | Yousuf Khan | General | 8 | November 1st 04 05:02 AM |
Intel developers helping out with Linux AMD64 | Yousuf Khan | Intel | 0 | December 17th 03 08:41 PM |
Intel | Commander | Intel | 0 | October 30th 03 07:05 PM |
Intel wants to slow down platform changes | Rob Stow | General | 6 | July 5th 03 11:13 AM |