Article: Tukwila Update
By: Phil (phdny.delete@this.mac.com), February 6, 2009 12:10 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
savantu (savantu@email.ro) on 2/5/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Vincent Diepeveen (diep@xs4all.nl) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>>
>>Excuse me?
>>
>>When was the last time you ordered hardware?
>>What price would you want to pay for Tukwila versus Nehalem?
>>
>>>It is a problem however if money goes to Sparc/Power even if Nehalem
>>>has 2x the performance per socket and per thread.Sometimes that isn't enough and
>>>that's where the whole Itanium philosophy comes into play.
>>
>>Software gets upgraded in lots of companies. All kind of software from the past
>>already has been replaced long time ago. All that software already scales pretty
>>ok. It is NO problem to let single socket or dual socket machines do the job, as long as they got ECC.
>>
>>Very few softwareproducts can profit major league from 4 socket machines over 2 socket machines, pricewise seen.
>>
>>Basically we're speaking about AI engines such as my chessprogram where a 4 socket box is real cool to have.
>>
>>Note for 2009 even that isn't relevant much, as some total idiots decided single
>>handed to have a 8 core (logical cores) limit there.
>>
>>Yet there is a lot of other tournaments out there. Thing is, that is software that
>>doesn't run crucial services for companies now.
>>
>>Vincent
>>
>>
>
>By the same logic SPARC sales would be 0. Yet, according to a friend from Siemens,
>all serious SAP installations they do are on SPARC.
>Explain that.
>
>Tukwilla doesn't need to beat x86 ; it needs to beat Power and SPARC to be as a
>real cash cow for Intel.They're half way through this , with Itanium sales having exceeded SPARC sales last year.
"with Itanium sales having exceeded SPARC sales last year " - Excuse me? Did you drink the coolaid from Intel or HP on Itanium vs SPARC sales?-check your facts before making clueless statements. Last time I checked (IDC Q1-Q3CY08), Sun SPARC volumes exceeded Itanium sales by over 4x (13,802 vs 48,585 servers) and SPARC revenue exceeded Itanium-just look at Sun's CMT sales alone @ over $1BN-surpassing Itanium. Clearly, Itanium volumes will continue to hurt ISV ROI investments and with Nehalem scaling upwards, how can Itanium survive without any volume? Sounds like a similar fate as Alpha...
>The obvious problem is that HP benefits the most from this and Intel should take
>steps to improve the situation of other IPF vendors , mainly Fujitsu and NEC.
>Of course, the golden goose would be IBM. :)
>
---------------------------
>Vincent Diepeveen (diep@xs4all.nl) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>>
>>Excuse me?
>>
>>When was the last time you ordered hardware?
>>What price would you want to pay for Tukwila versus Nehalem?
>>
>>>It is a problem however if money goes to Sparc/Power even if Nehalem
>>>has 2x the performance per socket and per thread.Sometimes that isn't enough and
>>>that's where the whole Itanium philosophy comes into play.
>>
>>Software gets upgraded in lots of companies. All kind of software from the past
>>already has been replaced long time ago. All that software already scales pretty
>>ok. It is NO problem to let single socket or dual socket machines do the job, as long as they got ECC.
>>
>>Very few softwareproducts can profit major league from 4 socket machines over 2 socket machines, pricewise seen.
>>
>>Basically we're speaking about AI engines such as my chessprogram where a 4 socket box is real cool to have.
>>
>>Note for 2009 even that isn't relevant much, as some total idiots decided single
>>handed to have a 8 core (logical cores) limit there.
>>
>>Yet there is a lot of other tournaments out there. Thing is, that is software that
>>doesn't run crucial services for companies now.
>>
>>Vincent
>>
>>
>
>By the same logic SPARC sales would be 0. Yet, according to a friend from Siemens,
>all serious SAP installations they do are on SPARC.
>Explain that.
>
>Tukwilla doesn't need to beat x86 ; it needs to beat Power and SPARC to be as a
>real cash cow for Intel.They're half way through this , with Itanium sales having exceeded SPARC sales last year.
"with Itanium sales having exceeded SPARC sales last year " - Excuse me? Did you drink the coolaid from Intel or HP on Itanium vs SPARC sales?-check your facts before making clueless statements. Last time I checked (IDC Q1-Q3CY08), Sun SPARC volumes exceeded Itanium sales by over 4x (13,802 vs 48,585 servers) and SPARC revenue exceeded Itanium-just look at Sun's CMT sales alone @ over $1BN-surpassing Itanium. Clearly, Itanium volumes will continue to hurt ISV ROI investments and with Nehalem scaling upwards, how can Itanium survive without any volume? Sounds like a similar fate as Alpha...
>The obvious problem is that HP benefits the most from this and Intel should take
>steps to improve the situation of other IPF vendors , mainly Fujitsu and NEC.
>Of course, the golden goose would be IBM. :)
>
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/04 11:03 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Dan | 2009/02/05 02:17 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Joe Chang | 2009/02/05 08:16 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Temp | 2009/02/05 08:25 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Paul | 2009/02/05 11:29 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 05:32 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 12:24 AM |
Great. Finally hard numbers | Michael S | 2009/02/06 03:46 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | lubemark | 2009/02/06 04:54 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 06:29 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 02:39 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/07 03:09 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 05:23 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/06 06:13 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 06:18 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 06:47 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 07:17 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 02:51 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 07:37 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 08:19 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 09:19 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 09:40 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 10:00 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/09 03:54 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/09 09:40 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Jouni Osmala | 2009/02/10 12:03 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/10 05:15 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | slacker | 2009/02/10 05:22 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/05 02:56 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 03:55 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/05 04:47 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | anon | 2009/02/05 09:16 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/05 09:27 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 06:32 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | anon | 2009/02/06 08:25 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 08:40 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/05 02:30 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | someone | 2009/02/05 06:00 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/05 06:36 AM |
POWER6 interconnect | confused | 2009/02/05 09:50 AM |
POWER6 interconnect | foobar | 2009/02/05 01:12 PM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Wes Felter | 2009/02/05 11:57 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Jesper Frimann | 2009/02/09 10:54 PM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/10 06:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 07:40 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/05 07:50 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 08:29 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/05 09:34 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 10:09 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Phil | 2009/02/06 12:10 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 12:50 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Phil | 2009/02/06 06:09 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 09:08 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 09:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/06 01:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 01:16 PM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:16 PM |
Why the platform focus? | mas | 2009/02/25 07:28 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 06:12 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Devon Welles | 2009/02/06 06:51 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 09:41 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Dean Kent | 2009/02/06 06:56 PM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | someone | 2009/02/07 08:38 AM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | Dean Kent | 2009/02/07 02:10 PM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:34 PM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/08 04:35 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:40 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 06:47 AM |
Yes it doesm performance matters | bob | 2009/02/05 09:51 AM |
Yes it doesm performance matters | Venki | 2009/02/05 10:06 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/06 12:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 01:00 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/05 09:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 11:03 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Default | 2009/02/05 12:29 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/05 01:08 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/05 01:24 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 02:30 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Paradox | 2009/02/05 10:22 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/05 12:41 PM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/05 09:57 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/06 05:11 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/06 12:58 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/08 01:24 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:38 AM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/08 03:27 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 06:26 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/08 11:35 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:53 AM |
All x86 SpecInt scores are useless due to autopar (NT) | Michael S | 2009/02/05 02:15 PM |
Auto parallelization | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 05:17 PM |
All x86 SpecInt scores are useless due to autopar (NT) | Paradox | 2009/02/06 07:47 AM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 03:49 PM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/06 12:09 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 07:14 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 09:37 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 11:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 12:09 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | someone | 2009/02/06 01:08 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:01 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | someone | 2009/02/08 01:24 PM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/08 04:06 PM |
mission-critical | mpx | 2009/02/09 01:30 AM |
mission-critical | rwessel | 2009/02/09 02:23 PM |
mission-critical | anon | 2009/02/09 02:55 AM |
mission-critical | EduardoS | 2009/02/09 04:17 PM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/09 07:11 PM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/10 04:20 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 06:26 AM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/10 07:01 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 12:36 PM |
mission-critical | someone | 2009/02/10 08:05 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 12:22 PM |
mission-critical | Zt | 2009/02/22 03:54 PM |
mission-critical | anon | 2009/02/10 09:41 PM |
mission-critical | EduardoS | 2009/02/10 12:46 PM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 01:31 PM |
mission-critical | slacker | 2009/02/10 06:30 PM |
mission-critical | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/18 06:20 AM |
Mission critical | mpx | 2009/02/09 12:00 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/07 12:15 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | David Kanter | 2009/02/07 12:34 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | max | 2009/02/07 02:30 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | someone | 2009/02/07 09:19 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 09:44 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:09 PM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Michael S | 2009/02/08 04:05 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | RagingDragon | 2009/02/09 11:03 PM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Jesper Frimann | 2009/02/09 11:51 PM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Alex Jones | 2009/02/10 12:43 PM |
Why the platform focus? | bob | 2009/02/08 03:51 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:23 AM |
missing the big picture | AM | 2009/02/18 05:43 AM |
missing the big picture | Michael S | 2009/02/18 07:42 AM |
missing the big picture | AM | 2009/02/18 08:03 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/06 11:47 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | mpx | 2009/02/06 03:48 PM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | Paul | 2009/02/07 01:56 PM |
z series? | Michael S | 2009/02/07 02:12 PM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | someone else | 2009/02/24 03:37 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | EduardoS | 2009/02/24 05:55 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | someone else | 2009/02/25 12:55 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | Michael S | 2009/02/25 01:27 AM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:18 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Paul | 2009/02/08 12:10 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Jukka Larja | 2009/02/08 10:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/06 01:10 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 01:40 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 01:51 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 01:58 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 08:26 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/07 09:10 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 09:40 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/07 11:24 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/07 11:32 PM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/08 03:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/08 04:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:15 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/08 10:36 PM |
Why the platform focus? | hobold | 2009/02/09 04:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 12:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/24 08:45 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:30 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/24 12:51 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 01:34 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 09:17 AM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/25 10:15 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/24 04:43 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/24 07:26 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Howard Chu | 2009/02/25 02:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 05:48 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 05:41 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/25 08:17 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 08:55 AM |
has anyone seen Tukwila silicon? | anon | 2009/02/25 09:38 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/25 10:05 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/25 12:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | a reader | 2009/02/26 08:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | rcf | 2009/02/27 12:32 PM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/27 01:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | rcf | 2009/02/27 02:50 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/25 03:30 PM |
$40M sale to $16M company | bob | 2009/02/25 07:25 PM |
$40M sale to $16M company | Richard Cownie | 2009/02/26 11:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/24 10:52 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/24 02:31 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:05 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone else | 2009/02/25 12:04 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 12:42 AM |
Put me down for $500 that Poulson doesn't arrive earlier than Q4/2011 (NT) | slacker | 2009/02/25 11:39 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 05:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/25 08:46 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 09:22 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 10:01 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/25 10:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/24 01:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 07:57 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/24 09:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 09:46 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/25 04:13 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 07:53 PM |
Why the platform focus? | bob | 2009/02/25 08:00 PM |
Please try to keep up (NT) | anon | 2009/02/25 08:49 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/25 11:09 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/26 12:12 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/26 01:16 AM |
Why the platform focus? | James | 2009/02/26 05:09 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | Michael S | 2009/02/26 05:29 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | anon | 2009/02/27 12:01 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | Howard Chu | 2009/02/27 12:37 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 01:02 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 02:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/07 12:18 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/08 09:16 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 06:40 AM |
Intels financial status | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/25 11:02 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 06:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 07:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Default | 2009/02/06 08:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 09:59 AM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:43 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 08:11 AM |