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: TGPTNDR who wrote (162115)	3/13/2002 7:31:43 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 186894

<font color=green>Intel Discloses U.S. Operations Lost $350 Million Last Year #reply-17195312

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (162115)	3/13/2002 7:45:59 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

TGPTNDR, Re: "LOL. You should most likely notice that clients and servers are required and that both companies chose to use P-III for the clients. And that the IBM clients had ~ 50% more ram to work with." Which no doubt contributed to performance. So what's your point? Mine is that server manufacturers have had more than a year to fine tune their servers around the Pentium III Xeon micro-architecture, and the best they could come up with for a 4-way configuration is 39k TpmC @ $7.95/TpmC. On the first day of its launch, IBM was able to take an Intel Xeon MP CPU, and come up with 55k TpmC @ 6.98/TpmC. That's more than a 40% performance improvement, as well as nearly a 14% improvement in price/performance. Granted that it took more than just a change in CPU architecture to get this improvement, but you can be sure that any business that's promised a 40% improvement in transactional throughput under a similar cost structure would be intrigued, no matter what the finer details are. The fact that you are fighting hard to trivialize this makes me want to LOL. wbmw