someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on January 29, 2013 8:58 am wrote:
> Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on January 29, 2013 4:42 am wrote:
> > Very interesting analysis, thanks.
> >
> > I think the argument about area and cost - and Intel's processing advantage -
> > is all correct. What may be missing is the impact of the different business
> > strategies: Intel really wants to sell those server cpus at very high margins -
> > say 300mm2 of silicon for $1500.
>
> Market research companies like Mecury have indicated Intel server MPU ASP is
> around $300.

Is this figure up-to-date? New SandyBridge-EP based Xeon-E5 CPUs look quite expensive.

> The vast majority of units sold are two socket server MPUs that
> differ from PC variants of the same device only by feature fusing.

That's was mostly correct up until Xeon 55xx series that was the same as core-i7 9xx.
But i7-9xx itself was much lower volume product than previous (and subsequent) Intel desktop chips.
Since i7-8xx Intel desktop CPU line split from dual-socket Xeon line.

> The high end
> Intel server MPUs with 4 figure prices sell in relatively small quantities and using
> them as a strawman for Intel competitiveness in low end servers is fallacious.