"So Intel invested 500M in Micron, 100M in Samsung, and who knows how many M developing DRDRAM chipsets just for the workstation market? Isn't Intel focusing on servers nowadays? Something isn't clicking. And the Athlon makes a better workstation for heavy FPU intensive applications..."
Speaking of Intel workstations, News.com has an article about the AWESOME effect PIII Xeon workstations are having on the market -
____________________________________________________________
"Intel's latest Xeon chips getting cool reception
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 23, 1999, 11:55 a.m. PT
Although PC makers have complained that they cannot get enough of Intel's latest Pentium III processors for desktops, the opposite appears to be happening with the latest generation of Intel's Xeon chips.
Hewlett-Packard, for instance, has decided to drop the Pentium III Xeon processor--a more expensive derivative of the Pentium III--from its workstation lines because of tepid demand, higher prices and negligible performance benefits, according to executives at the company. HP had been using the chips in both its high-performance Vizualize workstations and its Kayak line. Instead, HP will depend on Pentium IIIs or its own PA-RISC processors.
"For a workstation application, there really is no performance difference between a Pentium III and a Pentium III Xeon," said Dave Morse, business manager for HP's Vizualize workstations.
Similarly, Dell Computer, which historically has adopted most Intel microprocessors, will not be incorporating recently released 733-MHz, 667-MHz and 600-MHz Xeon Pentium IIIs into its workstation line, a Dell spokesperson said. Dell and HP are the top two PC workstation manufacturers.
Intel could not be reached for comment on this story. Nonetheless, company executives have often touted the success of PC manufacturers using its chips.
"All of the growth in workstations going forward for the next three years is based around the Intel architecture," Paul Otellini, general manager of the Intel architecture business group, said recently.
The cold shoulder for Xeon largely comes as a result of overlap in the Intel product line. Xeons cost more than standard Pentium IIIs but do not provide much advantage, executives and analysts said.
Improvements will come, but they likely won't convince everyone. Dell representatives indicated that the company would adopt enhanced versions of Xeon coming in 2000, but HP probably won't. In the past, when Xeons outperformed Pentiums, demand was still low, said Morse.
"The Xeons basically are all Pentium IIIs," said Dean McCarron, principal at Mercury Research, who added that Intel has probably not had the success it had hoped for with the product line.
Although the volumes of Xeon workstation chips remains small, indifference to the product line will likely have at least some impact on Intel's bottom line. Xeon chips cost between $50 to several hundred more than Pentium IIIs and, generally, are more profitable than Pentium IIIs. The higher profit on these chips has partially been used to offset lower margins on the Celeron chip line. Xeons mostly get used in server computers.
"The market is very small" for Xeon workstations, added Achim Kuttler, marketing manager for HP's business desktops in North America.
Analysts agreed.
"People aren't necessarily following Intel's guidelines," said Shawn Willett, an analyst at The Aberdeen Group. "The chips that are supposed to have lower performance are performing at or close to the level of the higher [end] ones."
The Xeon line, introduced last year, was touted as a high-performance version of the Pentium III for workstations and servers. Although based around the same processor core as desktop Pentium IIIs, the original Pentium III Xeons contained a faster secondary cache, a store of memory located near the processor for rapid data access. The faster cache boosted performance.
Xeons also came with caches ranging in size from 512KB, the same as standard Pentium IIIs, to 1MB and 2MB. Furthermore, Pentium III Xeons could be used in two-, four- and eventually eight-processor systems. The performance edge continued for Xeon in the first generation of Pentium III processors.
Along with greater performance, the chips commanded much higher prices. Xeons generally started at $931 and sold for as much as $3,692 for the versions with 2MB of cache. Standard Pentium IIIs typically premiered at under $800.
The performance equation however disappeared with the new line of "Coppermine" Pentium IIIs and Xeons that debuted in October. Coppermines differ from standard Pentium IIIs in that the secondary cache is integrated into the same piece of silicon as the processor. Although smaller, the integrated cache is much more powerful.
In fact, the improvement that comes from integration means that there is very little difference between the high-end Pentium III processor for desktops and the new version of Xeon based around the Coppermine design.
The difference mainly lies in price. The Xeons cost $50 more than Pentium IIIs running at the same speed. A 733-MHz Coppermine Xeon, for example, sells for $826 in volume. A standard 733-MHz Pentium III sells for $776. Several manufacturers are also using a chipset that allows them to build multiprocessor systems with ordinary Pentium IIIs.
Next year, the company will release Xeons with integrated 1MB and 2MB secondary caches, several sources said, which will again create a performance gap. Dell at that time will adopt higher performing Xeons, the Dell spokesperson said.
yahoo.cnet.com
____________________________________________________________
How much longer until OEMs start making Athlon workstations... |
