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.

Heres what IDC Server tracker shows:

All Itanium Q1-Q4 2007
Sum of Units 53,459
Sum of Customer Revenue (USM$) $4,393
Sum of Core Count Shipped 336,928
Sum of Die Count Shipped 212,736

Itanium Servers Shipped Q3 07 Q4 07 Q3 08
Sum of Units 14,062 15,240 13,802
Sum of Customer Revenue (USM$) $1,090 $1,356 $1,219
Sum of Core Count Shipped 83,534 100,924 115,812
Sum of Die Count Shipped 50,720 60,228 65,245

Itanium Servers Shipped Q1-Q3 2008
Sum of Units 40,366
Sum of Customer Revenue (USM$) $3,802
Sum of Core Count Shipped 292,161
Sum of Die Count Shipped 166,623

>
>Your implied claim of an average of 4.1 processors per
>Itanium system can't pass a basic sniff test.

Well, this is what the IDC data shows directly from the server tracker. Maybe the slideware is marketingware?
>
>See slide 9 here:
>
>http://hp-user-society.de/events/itanium/2006/vortraege/itanium_und_integrity_im_rechenzentrum.pdf

These slides are over 2 years old.. Itanium volumes and revenue don't appear to improving that much..

Sum of Itanium servers sold
2007Q1 11,323
2007Q2 12,834
2007Q3 14,062
2007Q4 15,240
2008Q1 12,382
2008Q2 14,182
2008Q3 13,802

Sum of Customer Revenue (USM$) Itanium
2007Q1 $935
2007Q2 $1,012
2007Q3 $1,090
2007Q4 $1,356
2008Q1 $1,300
2008Q2 $1,283
2008Q3 $1,219
>>
>
>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.

Agree here. How can Itanium compete against latest 2S and 4S Xeon systems that are faster and considerably cheaper?
>
>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:

Can you point me to the proof that HP shipped 1200 Superdomes per quarter??

The latest Dec08 IDC Server tracker is showing:

Q1-Q3-2008
All Superdomes sold 1,086
PA-RISC based Superdomes 144
Itanium based Superdome 942
Thats roughly 362/Qtr.. About 4x fewer than what you claim.

>
>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."

This is from HP marketing materials based on same IDC data I've been using. I don't see anywhere what's HP's definition of "high-end UNIX market" and this claim is quite easy to make considering the Itanium #'s are low, any increases show up as big %'s.
>
>
>Your claimed processor numbers are totally incompatible
>with these four linked presentations with IDC numbers
>and public IDC press releases to date.

The numbers I quoted are IDC's 2008 data. These presentations and facts listed here are mostly 2006 and 2007. Clearly the market has changed..
>
>Feel free to either post a link defending your claim or
>retract it.
>