Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (108021)	8/22/2000 6:26:59 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Pete, >When you can get 72 1G Tbirds plus Beowulf Cluster infrastructure for less than a 8 way Xeon SMP server goes for, there will be much less demand for those servers. Whoever develops that better make sure that they take care of the "Y3K problem" because that's how long it will probably be. And why would a 72 CPU machine be cheaper than an 8 way Xeon? The reason I say that is because 8 way Xeon servers are pretty damn reasonable. Tony

To: pgerassi who wrote (108021)	8/22/2000 6:40:19 PM
From: maui_dude	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Aloha folks, Thanks for all the useful info and thoughts (and a little bickering)posted by all of you. Also thanks to my friend who got me this account on SI. Here's an article where Craig Barrett predicts that SUNs vertical model will eventually fail. Intel CEO says Sun model doomed : yahoo.cnet.com Intel Camp vs SUN is much bigger battle to win for Intel than fighting AMD. I agree with Barrett and feel SUN will eventually be pushed away, but there is a lot of money to be made on SUNW next 2 years. There is also lots of money to be made on INTC (and maybe AMD in the short term, at least). I think, HP, CPQ and Dell also stand to gain a lot from Intels success a the high-end. Good luck to all. -maui

To: pgerassi who wrote (108021)	8/22/2000 6:50:48 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Pete, <That is because, 4 Xeons have to share each bus and the associated memory, while each Tbird has its own dedicated memory.> You are attempting a strawman here. In a server cluster, a 4-way Xeon box is considered a single unit. Then several of these 4-way SMP boxes will be clustered together into a system. SMP is only confined within each box. It is NOT meant to be a replacement for clustering. <When you can get 72 1G Tbirds plus Beowulf Cluster infrastructure for less than a 8 way Xeon SMP server goes for, there will be much less demand for those servers.> You should tell that to IBM. They decided to use 4-way Xeon boxes in their record-setting TPC-C benchmark: zdnet.com DB2 EEE 7.1, running on a cluster of 32 IBM Netfinity servers and on Windows 2000 Advanced Server, showed a sustained throughput of 440,879.95 transactions per minute at a five-year cost of ownership of $32.28 per transaction in audited TPC-C results released July 3. Wow, 32 4-way Xeon servers. That's an astounding number of servers, but that number is merely there to demonstrate the scalability of 4-way Xeons in cluster configurations. I'll guarantee you that uniprocessor Tbirds will not match the scalability nor the price/performance, no matter how many you use. But hey, if you're right and I'm wrong, then somebody ought to tell IBM that they could have gotten even better TPC-C results had they gone with uniprocessor Tbird boxes over 4-way Xeon servers. It doesn't work that way. So don't pretend that AMD doesn't need SMP. They do, and they know it. Tenchusatsu