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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (142914)	9/6/2001 3:04:56 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

TWY, <I said cost of producing a Power4 vs. what Intel charges for an Itanium.> That's a good one. Let's also compare the cost of producing a (P4) Xeon vs. what AMD charges for an Athlon MP. What's your point? <Since Itanium in its current form will have a rather short life, I think you need to compare the POWER4 with a large cache (maybe 2M) McKinley.> I think you need to refresh your concept of what a "large-cache McKinley" is. Intel already announced that McKinley will have 3M of on-die cache, and that's 0.18u. <I have seen estimates of less than $2500 for a complete 4 chip (8 core) module and I think that is way too high.> That sounds rather low. It's been commented that with the exotic module of POWER4, the silicon basically comes for free. And one more thing. I have not heard any plans for IBM to push POWER4 into 2-way or 4-way space. Their presentations make it sound like POWER4 is only going to start at 8-way and go up from there. Tenchusatsu

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (142914)	9/6/2001 10:36:19 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

TWY, Re: "answer the question or admit you are running your mouth with no backup." Can you try and make a post for once without sounding like a spoiled brat? This is not a tribunal, and you are not a judge, so stop playing make-believe, and stay on topic. First, stop making apples to oranges comparisons like the cost of producing one chip vs the price that a company charges for another. There is absolutely no point in arguing something like that, since no correlation can be made from such a comparison. Second, you have the cache size wrong for McKinley, which shows that you haven't done your research, either. McKinley is set to debut with 1.5MB and 3MB cache sizes. I normally wouldn't mind if someone makes mistakes like this, but if you are going to accuse me of reading comprehension, the least you could do is get your facts straight. Third, is your estimate based on cost or price? I've seen prices on the TPC benchmark disclosure form, and although they take into account the secondary markup of a vendor, here is what I see IBM charge for a: 2-way 375MHz Power3, 4MB L2 - $13,000 ($6,500 each) 6way 600Mhz RS64 IV Proc, 16MB L2 - $230,000 ($38,333 each) I put a "per processor" cost in parentheses, but since they all come part of a package, there is little sense in labeling them like that, except for making a point that IBM's processor prices are much higher for their own chip than for Intel's, which suggests a far lower volume parts. Since Power3 is an aging architecture, I would imagine that the final price of Power4 to be closer to IBM's top-of-the-line RS64-IV processor, especially since the Power4 is said to have an expensive packaging. If that ends up being the case, then that would suggest either a more than heavy markup, or very large costs for producing a package and all multiple processors within it. This is as of June, 2001. For comparison, IBM charges $6,599 for a Pentium III Xeon 900MHz/2MB L2 Cache Processor. That's as of April, 2001. tpc.org tpc.org Since I have shown evidence from my end, maybe you can actually show off some of your so-called expertise, and back yourself up, before it looks like you are the one running your mouth off with no backup. wanna_bmw