Devon Welles (no@thanks.com) on 2/6/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Vincent Diepeveen (diep@xs4all.nl) on 2/6/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>savantu (savantu@email.ro) on 2/6/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>I'm talking about revenue, not units. SUN was still shipping large amounts of small servers.
>>>
>>>Itanium sales are [b] above $1B[/b] per Q and IIRC it surpassed SPARC worlwide at the end of o8.
>>
>>So Itanium is bigger than entire car industry+heavy metal together?
>>
>>"based upon revenue"
>>
>>You are a lawyer hired to defend the sinking ship?
>>
>>Vincent
>
>Do you even know what "revenue" is? Seriously, it's becoming more of a mystery why you even bother to post here.

What i do know is that if you say:

"my ship is great because it is afloat and kicking butt and it doesn't have that much water inside compared to titanic"

That this is a pretty meaningless

To do an objective comparision, calculate itanium sales as percentage from the total server market.

Realize most servers are nowadays simple quadcore machines.

Also a bad compare is to compare itanium with a cpu that was last time competative around januari 2003 (so before in april the opteron launched). Namely the Xeon MP P4 2.8Ghz and 3.06Ghz

By the way that were fast cpu's at the time compared to the prescotts for integer software (ipc wise seen) and that wasn't because of the big L2's they had.

Sincethen i remember only that a few months ago intel started launching a new server chip that is 4 sockets, wasn't it dunnington? And beckton gets demonstrated a few days from now.

So comparing itanium with the sales from dunnington, which is probably what happens, is not really a fair compare is it?

How about comparing itanium with all the opteron/barcelona AMD cpu's that have been sold?

That's a rather fair comparision.

Yet if i see the huge number of quad socket opteron boxes, then i already know which chip is going to win that comparision.

Vincent