Re: Cheaper than Sun and reliably hacked by any script kiddie?
No, Intel servers are more expensive than SUN, 32 bit instead of 64 bit, and reliably hacked by any script kiddie.
- AMD servers may use the same software, so they're just as easy to hack as Intel boxes, but at least they are reliable and cost less.
The typical "Intel vs. Sun" argument that I've been hearing recently (and have heard in the past) goes something like this:
- "Sun can't compete on price/performance with cheap x86 systems."
- "When Itanium comes out, Intel will use the same economics of scale to push Sun out of the high-end" (of course, now it's "when McKinley comes out", and no doubt it'll soon be "when Madison comes out", etc., etc.)
- "Sun has been losing market share to Intel"
<long post>
I have mentioned in many previous posts that Sun servers are price competitive with Intel-based servers. Below I provide an example of the cost of the Sun Fire V880 and Netra X1, versus similar servers from Compaq and Dell.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The systems compared below were the most similar that I could find from the respective vendor. I believe that each of them have things like hot-pluggable/redundant power supplies and cooling fans, hot-pluggable disks, and around 10 or so I/O slots.
Sun Fire V880 (Max. config: 8 CPU, 32 GB RAM, 9PCI, 873 GB internal HDD)
$29,995
- 2 X 750MHz UltraSPARC III
- 4 GB RAM
- 6 X 36 GB HDD
Compaq ML 750 (Max. config: 8 CPU, 16GB RAM, 11PCI , 1529 GB internal HDD)
$36,000
- 2 X 700MHz PIII Xeon w/ 1MB L2 cache
- 4 GB RAM
- 6 X 36.4 GB HDD
Dell PowerEdge 8450 (Max. config: 8 CPU, 32GB RAM, 10PCI, 146 GB internal HDD)
$23,400
- 2 X 700MHz PIII Xeon w/ 2MB L2 cache
- 4 GB RAM
- 2 X 73 GB HDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are 1U rack mountable servers, the smallest ones available. These all have very limited memory capacity, HDD, etc.
Sun Netra X1 (Max. config: 1 CPU, 2GB RAM, 0PCI, 80 GB internal HDD)
$995
- 1 X 500MHz UltraSPARC IIe
- 128 MB RAM
- 40 GB HDD
Dell PowerEdge 350 (Max. config: 1 CPU, 1GB RAM, 1 PCI, 160 GB internal HDD)
$1,205
- 1 X 850MHz Celeron
- 128 MB RAM
- 20 GB HDD
Compaw DL320 (Max. config: 1 CPU, 2 GB RAM, 1 PCI, 80 GB HDD)
$1,699
- 1 X 1.13GHz PIII
- 128 MB RAM
- 40 GB HDD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few SPEC score comparisons of some of the processors used in the systems above. You can find these scores at:
spec.org
(or better yet)
aceshardware.com (thanks Chris!)
The SPEC CPU benchmarks measure the performance of a computers' processor, memory architecture, and compilers. Basically, SPECint and SPECfp measure how quickly a computer can complete a typical integer or floating point intensive task. SPECint_rate and SPECfp_rate measure how many tasks a computer can complete within a given amount of time. This is the more important benchmark for multiprocessor servers.
700MHz PIII Xeon w/ 2MB L2 cache
SPECint2000 438 peak, 431 base
SPECfp2000 294 peak, 271 base
750MHz UltraSPARC III
SPECint2000 395 peak, 370 base
SPECfp2000 421 peak, 373 base
32-way 900MHz PIII Xeon w/ 2MB L2 cache
SPECint_rate2000 113 peak, 111 base
24-way 750MHz UltraSPARC III
SPECint_rate2000 101 peak, 96.1 base
8-way 700MHz PIII Xeon w/ 2MB L2 cache
SPECfp_rate2000 9.21 peak, 8.18 base
8-way 750Mhz UltraSPARC III
SPECfp_rate2000 31.2 peak, 29 base
It is notable that a 24-way UltraSPARC III performs almost as well as a 32-way Xeon on SPECint_rate. Also, notice how poorly the 8-way Xeon does in SPECfp_rate. The scalability in floating point tasks is terrible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems clear that Sun is very competitive with Intel-based servers in price/performance. If Sun can compete in price/performance with x86 systems today, what are the chances that IA64 will do any better?
So of what value is IA64 to server vendors, and customers? While the general trend in the computer industry is to consolidate to fewer platforms, Intel offers YET ANOTHER platform instead. Why?
Here are IDCs published figures of server sales in the last 3 years. For 2001 I estimated based on IDC data for the first three quarters, and other available data for the forth quarter.
--------1998 1999 2000 2001 (my est.)
IBM $14.6b $13.1b $13.6b $12.9b
SUNW $5.8b $7.3b $10.3b $7.2b
HWP $7.5b $8.2b $9.0b $7.1b
CPQ $6.4b $8.4b $10.0b $7.6b
DELL $1.6b $2.4b $3.4b $3.5b
With the exception of 2001 (where almost every vendor lost sales) it is clear that the general trend for Sun has been a RAPID increase in server revenue and market share. In 2001 Sun saw server sales levels at about what they were in 1999. Not bad. Better than Compaq's sales which dropped below 1999 levels, HP's sales which dropped below 1998 levels, and IBM, touted as having a great turnaround in 2001, who still sold nearly $3billion less than they did in 1998!
Of course, Dell has done the best during the recession. The curtailing of spending on things like, oh, MILLION DOLLAR SERVERS has had no effect on them whatsoever. This isn't to say that there is anything wrong with Dell, just that they were better shielded against the decline in IT spending.
So what does the competition look like?
- It took IBM several years to decline to where they are, it'll take several years for them to get back, if they ever do. They have a brand new fancy processor, and they are pushing Linux on all of their server lines. What use do they have for Intel?
- HP, Compaq, and Dell are all basically in the same boat. While Carly rants about "Market Unifying Standards", consolidation, and so forth, there is one company who is already there.
- Sun is the only server vendor to offer a single binary compatible architecture from the very low-end Netra X1, to the 72-way Sun Fire 15K (excuse the marketing slang.) SPARC-Solaris is the most popular and software vendor supported Unix OS.
</long post>
So there you have it. I dunno, from my perspective, things look pretty rosey
boards.fool.com
Thanks to Milo on the MOD thread for the link. |
