Article: Tukwila Update
By: Phil (phil.delete@this.phil.com), February 6, 2009 7:47 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 2/6/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Phil (phdny@mac.com) on 2/6/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Paul (no@thanks.com) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Temp (not@this.time) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>"Itanium sales are roughly comparable to Xeon MP volumes." could mean so many things.
>>>>>One could be comparing CPU unit sales, CPU dollars sales (before or after rebates),
>>>>>or even server sales based on those CPU product lines. Roughly comparable could
>>>>>means anything from being equal, to being on the same order of magnitude - not
>>>differing more than by a factor of 10.
>>>>>
>>>>>David could surely comment and clarify.
>>>>
>>>>Or it could mean that the volumes are the same, Xeon MP is much lower volume than
>>>>DP (or whatever they call dual socket capable Xeons these >days).
>>>
>>>I was being purposefully vague with that statement, but I really meant CPU shipments.
>>>
>>>My sense is that IPF and Xeon MP shipments are within a factor of 2-3.
>>>
>>>I believe that Xeon MP is around 2M/year, IPF is probably close to 1M.
>>
>>David-Get an account with IDC because you need to check your facts. Based on IDC's
>>latest server tracker data, for Q1-Q3 2008, 40,366 Itanium servers shipped (166,623
>>Itanium CPUs). Clearly a bit off from 1M unless you are accounting for unsold chips
>>and systems. 153,542 4-socket Xeon/EM64T servers (611,469 Xeon/EM64T Chips) shipped
>during same period. Thats 15x delta!
>>
>
>I say you are flat out wrong about processor count.
>
>See slide 12 here:
>
>http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/7/7/3772d75c-bce4-4a1c-977c-2f6bb6ef7fda/IDC_Keynote_Frankfurt_2008.pdf
>
>IDC says the average Itanium system sold for HPC in 2007
>had 7 processors and was priced at $8966 per processor.
>That means 150,000 processors shipped just for HPC and
>HPC was less than a third of IPF sales in 2007. IPF sales
>in each of Q1, Q2, and Q3 2008 were higher YoY according
>to public IDC and HP statements and I doubt system price
>per processor went up *at all* in 2008 let alone by a big
>factor.
>
>Your implied claim of an average of 4.1 processors per
>Itanium system can't pass a basic sniff test.
>
>See slide 9 here:
>
>http://hp-user-society.de/events/itanium/2006/vortraege/itanium_und_integrity_im_rechenzentrum.pdf
>>
>
>The trend over three years is clearly to higher processor
>count in Itanium systems sold. In Q4 2006 the portion of
>revenue represented by 2s and 4s systems had fallen
>below 30% of Itanium sales two years ago.
>
>Also see slide 17 here:
>
>https://www-950.ibm.com/events/wwe/grp/grp010.nsf/vLookupPDFs/%EB%A1%9C%EB%93%9C%EC%87%BC%EB%8C%80%EA%B5%AC_%EA%B0%80%EC%83%81%ED%99%94-%EC%84%9C%EB%B2%84%ED%86%B5%ED%95%A9_081030(%ED%97%88%EC%9A%B1)/$file/%EB%A1%9C%EB%93%9C%EC%87%BC%EB%8C%80%EA%B5%AC_%EA%B0%80%EC%83%81%ED%99%94-%EC%84%9C%EB%B2%84%ED%86%B5%ED%95%A9_081030(%ED%97%88%EC%9A%B1).pdf
>
>IDC says HP shipped about 1200 Superdomes per quarter
>for Unix in 2007. Some of those were PA-RISC - about as
>many as IPF Superdomes shipped with Windows or Linux
>and not counted in those 1200. IDC and HP numbers for
>Q1-Q3 2008 all show higher Itanium sales each quarter
>YoY. It isn't unreasonable that HP sold >4000 Itanium
>Superdomes in Q1-Q3 2008:
>
>http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/107846-0-0-0-121.html?ERL=true
>>
>
>"December 2008: IDC released a quarterly update to their Worldwide Quarterly Server
>Tracker, citing market share figures for the 3rd calendar quarter of 2008 (3Q08).
>Consider these telling facts:
>
>[..]
>
>Fact 8: HP is the leader in the high-end UNIX market, with a 41.1% revenue share, and a 42.9% units share.
>
>HP was the only major UNIX vendor to grow high-end UNIX revenue and gained 4.6 points revenue share year over year."
>
>
>Your claimed processor numbers are totally incompatible
>with these four linked presentations with IDC numbers
>and public IDC press releases to date.
>
>Feel free to either post a link defending your claim or
>retract it.
>
I'll need to figure out how to do this but I used the data directly from IDC's latest Quarterly Server Tracker data which is the December 2, 2008 release as listed here:
http://www.idctracker.com/AllProducts.jsp?groupid=SRV
For all "EPIC" servers shipped in 2008 this is what IDC shows:
Sum of Units 40,366
Sum of Factory Revenue (USM$) $3,616
Sum of Customer Revenue (USM$) $3,802
Sum of Core Count Shipped 292,161
Sum of Die Count Shipped 166,623
Maybe Die count does not equal CPUs sold??
Also, spreadsheet shows HP shipped 942 x Itanium based SUPERDOMES from Q1-Q3 2008.
I'll need to see where this latest data is located on net.
---------------------------
>Phil (phdny@mac.com) on 2/6/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Paul (no@thanks.com) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Temp (not@this.time) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>"Itanium sales are roughly comparable to Xeon MP volumes." could mean so many things.
>>>>>One could be comparing CPU unit sales, CPU dollars sales (before or after rebates),
>>>>>or even server sales based on those CPU product lines. Roughly comparable could
>>>>>means anything from being equal, to being on the same order of magnitude - not
>>>differing more than by a factor of 10.
>>>>>
>>>>>David could surely comment and clarify.
>>>>
>>>>Or it could mean that the volumes are the same, Xeon MP is much lower volume than
>>>>DP (or whatever they call dual socket capable Xeons these >days).
>>>
>>>I was being purposefully vague with that statement, but I really meant CPU shipments.
>>>
>>>My sense is that IPF and Xeon MP shipments are within a factor of 2-3.
>>>
>>>I believe that Xeon MP is around 2M/year, IPF is probably close to 1M.
>>
>>David-Get an account with IDC because you need to check your facts. Based on IDC's
>>latest server tracker data, for Q1-Q3 2008, 40,366 Itanium servers shipped (166,623
>>Itanium CPUs). Clearly a bit off from 1M unless you are accounting for unsold chips
>>and systems. 153,542 4-socket Xeon/EM64T servers (611,469 Xeon/EM64T Chips) shipped
>during same period. Thats 15x delta!
>>
>
>I say you are flat out wrong about processor count.
>
>See slide 12 here:
>
>http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/7/7/3772d75c-bce4-4a1c-977c-2f6bb6ef7fda/IDC_Keynote_Frankfurt_2008.pdf
>
>IDC says the average Itanium system sold for HPC in 2007
>had 7 processors and was priced at $8966 per processor.
>That means 150,000 processors shipped just for HPC and
>HPC was less than a third of IPF sales in 2007. IPF sales
>in each of Q1, Q2, and Q3 2008 were higher YoY according
>to public IDC and HP statements and I doubt system price
>per processor went up *at all* in 2008 let alone by a big
>factor.
>
>Your implied claim of an average of 4.1 processors per
>Itanium system can't pass a basic sniff test.
>
>See slide 9 here:
>
>http://hp-user-society.de/events/itanium/2006/vortraege/itanium_und_integrity_im_rechenzentrum.pdf
>>
>
>The trend over three years is clearly to higher processor
>count in Itanium systems sold. In Q4 2006 the portion of
>revenue represented by 2s and 4s systems had fallen
>below 30% of Itanium sales two years ago.
>
>Also see slide 17 here:
>
>https://www-950.ibm.com/events/wwe/grp/grp010.nsf/vLookupPDFs/%EB%A1%9C%EB%93%9C%EC%87%BC%EB%8C%80%EA%B5%AC_%EA%B0%80%EC%83%81%ED%99%94-%EC%84%9C%EB%B2%84%ED%86%B5%ED%95%A9_081030(%ED%97%88%EC%9A%B1)/$file/%EB%A1%9C%EB%93%9C%EC%87%BC%EB%8C%80%EA%B5%AC_%EA%B0%80%EC%83%81%ED%99%94-%EC%84%9C%EB%B2%84%ED%86%B5%ED%95%A9_081030(%ED%97%88%EC%9A%B1).pdf
>
>IDC says HP shipped about 1200 Superdomes per quarter
>for Unix in 2007. Some of those were PA-RISC - about as
>many as IPF Superdomes shipped with Windows or Linux
>and not counted in those 1200. IDC and HP numbers for
>Q1-Q3 2008 all show higher Itanium sales each quarter
>YoY. It isn't unreasonable that HP sold >4000 Itanium
>Superdomes in Q1-Q3 2008:
>
>http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/107846-0-0-0-121.html?ERL=true
>>
>
>"December 2008: IDC released a quarterly update to their Worldwide Quarterly Server
>Tracker, citing market share figures for the 3rd calendar quarter of 2008 (3Q08).
>Consider these telling facts:
>
>[..]
>
>Fact 8: HP is the leader in the high-end UNIX market, with a 41.1% revenue share, and a 42.9% units share.
>
>HP was the only major UNIX vendor to grow high-end UNIX revenue and gained 4.6 points revenue share year over year."
>
>
>Your claimed processor numbers are totally incompatible
>with these four linked presentations with IDC numbers
>and public IDC press releases to date.
>
>Feel free to either post a link defending your claim or
>retract it.
>
I'll need to figure out how to do this but I used the data directly from IDC's latest Quarterly Server Tracker data which is the December 2, 2008 release as listed here:
http://www.idctracker.com/AllProducts.jsp?groupid=SRV
For all "EPIC" servers shipped in 2008 this is what IDC shows:
Sum of Units 40,366
Sum of Factory Revenue (USM$) $3,616
Sum of Customer Revenue (USM$) $3,802
Sum of Core Count Shipped 292,161
Sum of Die Count Shipped 166,623
Maybe Die count does not equal CPUs sold??
Also, spreadsheet shows HP shipped 942 x Itanium based SUPERDOMES from Q1-Q3 2008.
I'll need to see where this latest data is located on net.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 12:03 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Dan | 2009/02/05 03:17 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Joe Chang | 2009/02/05 09:16 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Temp | 2009/02/05 09:25 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Paul | 2009/02/05 12:29 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 06:32 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 01:24 AM |
Great. Finally hard numbers | Michael S | 2009/02/06 04:46 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | lubemark | 2009/02/06 05:54 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 07:29 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:39 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/07 04:09 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 06:23 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/06 07:13 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 07:18 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 07:47 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 08:17 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:51 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 08:37 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 09:19 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 10:19 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 10:40 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 11:00 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/09 04:54 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/09 10:40 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Jouni Osmala | 2009/02/10 01:03 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/10 06:15 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | slacker | 2009/02/10 06:22 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/05 03:56 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 04:55 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/05 05:47 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | anon | 2009/02/05 10:16 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/05 10:27 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 07:32 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | anon | 2009/02/06 09:25 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 09:40 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/05 03:30 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | someone | 2009/02/05 07:00 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/05 07:36 AM |
POWER6 interconnect | confused | 2009/02/05 10:50 AM |
POWER6 interconnect | foobar | 2009/02/05 02:12 PM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Wes Felter | 2009/02/05 12:57 PM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Jesper Frimann | 2009/02/09 11:54 PM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/10 07:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 08:40 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/05 08:50 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 09:29 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/05 10:34 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 11:09 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Phil | 2009/02/06 01:10 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 01:50 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Phil | 2009/02/06 07:09 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 10:08 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 10:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/06 02:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 02:16 PM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 04:16 PM |
Why the platform focus? | mas | 2009/02/25 08:28 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 07:12 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Devon Welles | 2009/02/06 07:51 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 10:41 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Dean Kent | 2009/02/06 07:56 PM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | someone | 2009/02/07 09:38 AM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | Dean Kent | 2009/02/07 03:10 PM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 04:34 PM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/08 05:35 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 04:40 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 07:47 AM |
Yes it doesm performance matters | bob | 2009/02/05 10:51 AM |
Yes it doesm performance matters | Venki | 2009/02/05 11:06 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/06 01:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 02:00 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/05 10:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 12:03 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Default | 2009/02/05 01:29 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/05 02:08 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/05 02:24 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 03:30 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Paradox | 2009/02/05 11:22 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/05 01:41 PM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/05 10:57 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/06 06:11 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/06 01:58 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/08 02:24 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 09:38 AM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/08 04:27 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 07:26 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/09 12:35 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 09:53 AM |
All x86 SpecInt scores are useless due to autopar (NT) | Michael S | 2009/02/05 03:15 PM |
Auto parallelization | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 06:17 PM |
All x86 SpecInt scores are useless due to autopar (NT) | Paradox | 2009/02/06 08:47 AM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 04:49 PM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/06 01:09 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 08:14 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 10:37 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 12:49 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 01:09 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | someone | 2009/02/06 02:08 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 06:01 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | someone | 2009/02/08 02:24 PM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/08 05:06 PM |
mission-critical | mpx | 2009/02/09 02:30 AM |
mission-critical | rwessel | 2009/02/09 03:23 PM |
mission-critical | anon | 2009/02/09 03:55 AM |
mission-critical | EduardoS | 2009/02/09 05:17 PM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/09 08:11 PM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/10 05:20 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 07:26 AM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/10 08:01 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 01:36 PM |
mission-critical | someone | 2009/02/10 09:05 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 01:22 PM |
mission-critical | Zt | 2009/02/22 04:54 PM |
mission-critical | anon | 2009/02/10 10:41 PM |
mission-critical | EduardoS | 2009/02/10 01:46 PM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 02:31 PM |
mission-critical | slacker | 2009/02/10 07:30 PM |
mission-critical | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/18 07:20 AM |
Mission critical | mpx | 2009/02/09 01:00 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/07 01:15 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | David Kanter | 2009/02/07 01:34 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | max | 2009/02/07 03:30 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | someone | 2009/02/07 10:19 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 10:44 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 06:09 PM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Michael S | 2009/02/08 05:05 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | RagingDragon | 2009/02/10 12:03 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Jesper Frimann | 2009/02/10 12:51 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Alex Jones | 2009/02/10 01:43 PM |
Why the platform focus? | bob | 2009/02/08 04:51 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 09:23 AM |
missing the big picture | AM | 2009/02/18 06:43 AM |
missing the big picture | Michael S | 2009/02/18 08:42 AM |
missing the big picture | AM | 2009/02/18 09:03 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/06 12:47 PM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | mpx | 2009/02/06 04:48 PM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | Paul | 2009/02/07 02:56 PM |
z series? | Michael S | 2009/02/07 03:12 PM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | someone else | 2009/02/24 04:37 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | EduardoS | 2009/02/24 06:55 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | someone else | 2009/02/25 01:55 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | Michael S | 2009/02/25 02:27 AM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 06:18 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Paul | 2009/02/08 01:10 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Jukka Larja | 2009/02/08 11:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/06 02:10 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 02:40 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 02:51 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 02:58 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 09:26 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/07 10:10 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 10:40 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/07 12:24 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/08 12:32 AM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/08 04:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/08 05:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 09:15 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/08 11:36 PM |
Why the platform focus? | hobold | 2009/02/09 05:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 01:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/24 09:45 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 12:30 PM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/24 01:51 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/25 12:04 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 02:34 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 10:17 AM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/25 11:15 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/24 05:43 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/24 08:26 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Howard Chu | 2009/02/25 03:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 06:48 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 06:41 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/25 09:17 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 09:55 AM |
has anyone seen Tukwila silicon? | anon | 2009/02/25 10:38 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/25 11:05 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/25 01:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | a reader | 2009/02/26 09:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | rcf | 2009/02/27 01:32 PM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/27 02:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | rcf | 2009/02/27 03:50 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/25 04:30 PM |
$40M sale to $16M company | bob | 2009/02/25 08:25 PM |
$40M sale to $16M company | Richard Cownie | 2009/02/26 12:21 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/24 11:52 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 12:20 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/24 03:31 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/25 12:05 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone else | 2009/02/25 01:04 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 01:42 AM |
Put me down for $500 that Poulson doesn't arrive earlier than Q4/2011 (NT) | slacker | 2009/02/25 12:39 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 06:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/25 09:46 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 10:22 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 11:01 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/25 11:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/24 02:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 08:57 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/24 10:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 10:46 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/25 05:13 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 08:53 PM |
Why the platform focus? | bob | 2009/02/25 09:00 PM |
Please try to keep up (NT) | anon | 2009/02/25 09:49 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/26 12:09 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/26 01:12 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/26 02:16 AM |
Why the platform focus? | James | 2009/02/26 06:09 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | Michael S | 2009/02/26 06:29 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | anon | 2009/02/27 01:01 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | Howard Chu | 2009/02/27 01:37 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 02:02 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 03:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/07 01:18 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/08 10:16 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 07:40 AM |
Intels financial status | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/25 12:02 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 07:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 08:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Default | 2009/02/06 09:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 10:59 AM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 06:43 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 09:11 AM |