Y
R
Robert Myers
Nothing new here except the words of an analyst:
"Otellini's comments now suggest that Intel intends to release a
desktop chip similar to and compatible with AMD's 64-bit offering,
Brookwood said."
Far as I can tell, Otellini said not a word about compatibility.
Maybe, maybe not. Either the Reuters correspondent wrote a lousy
article, putting the important words into the mouth of someone who
doesn't count, it was edited badly, or Brookwood drew an unwarranted
conclusion.
RM
L
lyon_wonder
Far as I can tell, Otellini said not a word about compatibility.
IMO, an Intel-branded 64-bit X86 (whether fully-campatible with AMD's
64-bit X86 or not) is more realistic than an average-joe desktop
version of IA64. By the time of the 2008 presidential primaries
(which is a long time in the tech world) IA64 will probably still be
stuck in the high-end server/workstation segment. So much for Intel's
grand vision for IA64 as an successor to X86
Intel just doesn't
want to admit that they'd been beaten by AMD as far as general
widespread acceptable of a 64-bit capable platform. And it would take
a long time for Intel to catch up with then if they wish to go the
IA64 route. So Intel cowers in muted secrecy on what 64-bit X86
support they may be working on.
IMO, an Intel-branded 64-bit X86 (whether fully-campatible with AMD's
64-bit X86 or not) is more realistic than an average-joe desktop
version of IA64. By the time of the 2008 presidential primaries
(which is a long time in the tech world) IA64 will probably still be
stuck in the high-end server/workstation segment. So much for Intel's
grand vision for IA64 as an successor to X86
Intel just doesn'twant to admit that they'd been beaten by AMD as far as general
widespread acceptable of a 64-bit capable platform. And it would take
a long time for Intel to catch up with then if they wish to go the
IA64 route. So Intel cowers in muted secrecy on what 64-bit X86
support they may be working on.
R
Robert Myers
IMO, an Intel-branded 64-bit X86 (whether fully-campatible with AMD's
64-bit X86 or not) is more realistic than an average-joe desktop
version of IA64. By the time of the 2008 presidential primaries
(which is a long time in the tech world) IA64 will probably still be
stuck in the high-end server/workstation segment. So much for Intel's
grand vision for IA64 as an successor to X86
want to admit that they'd been beaten by AMD as far as general
widespread acceptable of a 64-bit capable platform. And it would take
a long time for Intel to catch up with then if they wish to go the
IA64 route. So Intel cowers in muted secrecy on what 64-bit X86
support they may be working on.
Intel said, when it rolled out the P4, that the technology would scale
to 10GHz, so I don't think they had any near-term plans to abandon
x86. By the time the P4 *does* reach 10GHz (if, indeed, it makes it),
the world of computers is likely to have changed beyond recognition,
and I don't think Intel ever had IA64 targeted at desktops. What used
to be desktops will be divided into home/office appliances with
low-power, low-heat, low-noise chips and workstations, where Xeon,
AMD64, Opteron, and Itanium are going to be fighting over a
modest-sized market.
What has happened that _has_ taken Intel by surprise, is that AMD has
successfully invaded a space for corporate servers it thought it
owned. They had expected to have that space nailed down with Itanium
and Xeon with performance out of reach for AMD. My own read is that
IBM's willingness to put the best of its process technology at AMD's
disposal tipped the balance of performance in a way that Intel never
expected.
Intel plainly feels a little pressured, but not so pressured that they
have made anything but P4/Xeon easy to buy. Just try to buy an
Itanium to put into your SuperMicro board or a Pentium-M to put into
your ITX board. Somebody out there beside me must be really
interested in what might be possible with Pentium-M if Intel didn't
keep such a tight grip on it, and Intel is more eager to keep Itanium
from being equated in any way with Opteron than it is to sell them.
Just my read.
RM
D
David Schwartz
Nothing in the article or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Intel
will use AMD64 or anything that is similar to it in any way other than it
will run 64-bit software (source code compatability in high-level
languages).
DS
Y
Yousuf Khan
David Schwartz said:
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.
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.
Yousuf Khan
G
George Macdonald
Long before P4 came to fruition, there were "road-maps" which showed x86
reduced to a near-zero role - only STBs IIRC - by 2005/2006. Those
portrayals are no longer available of course so their provenance is
therefore difficult to pin down now but they looked official enough to me
and were published on reputable industry sites like E-Insite. It was
certainly my interpretation at the time that IA64 was targeted to take over
even the desktop market by then and that Intel was the one saying it.
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".
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.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
G
George Macdonald
The article most certainly does suggest that an analyst read things that
way. Whether Otellini meant that is another matter - Itanium for the
desktop does not "fit" either - an Iteleron??<shrug>
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
D
David Schwartz
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.
That's because there's no 64-bit software market yet. That's Intel's
whole point.
DS
D
David Schwartz
There's no evidence that Intel feels that way. Everyone is free to
speculate.
DS
Y
Yousuf Khan
David Schwartz said:
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.
If there's no 64-bit software market yet, then why did Intel make the
Itanium?
Yousuf Khan
Y
Yousuf Khan
George Macdonald said:
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.cfm?fuseaction=displaynews&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
G
Guest
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
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
R
Robert Myers
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:02:48 -0500, George Macdonald
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
<pure speculation>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.
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
B
Bjorn-Ove.Heimsund
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Spamme Now said:
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.
R
Rob Stow
Spamme said:
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.
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.
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.
G
Guest
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
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
Y
Yousuf Khan
Spamme Now said:
Yeah, but you're not the only one to think that they look unreal:
http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/
Yousuf Khan
Y
Yousuf Khan
Rob Stow said:
They are talking about servers here, so in this case, the need might
actually be there too.
Yousuf Khan
G
Guest
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> 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
Apple has no shame whatsoever. Unreal to believe that someone was not
going to check this out!
Another big whatever.
Thanks,
Alan
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