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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (76442)	4/3/2002 10:05:03 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 275872

Dear Pete: In theory you might be right. In practice, things are very different. If AMD really could set up a cluster system with as much reliability, as much or greater performance, and far less TCO than then a highly scalable 4-way or greater server, then the perfect marketing event would be to set one of those systems up, and demonstrate it to the world. You know why AMD doesn't do that? Because it's just not as simple as you think. And here's one more thing for you to ponder. AMD is creating a product called Sledgehammer than it wants to sell in highly scalable servers - the same ones that you say are going to be obsoleted by clustered DP racks. Is AMD making a marketing blunder by directing so many resources towards a dead-end goal, or do you think perhaps that you might be mistaken about the benefits of scalable systems? wbmw

To: pgerassi who wrote (76442)	4/3/2002 11:38:57 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Pete, Why do those in the know pull their Intel servers and replaced them with Athlon servers? Because they were faster, cheaper and more reliable. Cheaper? yes, faster?, I think so, more reliable? they still need more track record, so let's not jump ahead of ourselves. As far as clusters of 2 way vs. 4+ way, there are some problems that are better addressed by a multi CPU computer rather than a cluster of 1 or 2 way, mainly databases. So there is room in the market for them. But at the speed of performance increases of CPUs, a 1 or 2 way server is satisfactory for greater and greater percentage of problems, leaving the real need for >2 systems ever shrinking need. Note that I said real. There was a research done (I wish I saved the link) about what people buy vs. what they need in servers, and the result was that people vasty overestimated the real need with their hardware purchases. They bought far more powerful servers than they needed, and they vastly overspent compared to what they needed to spend. The study was done about 6 to 12 months ago, and still during the .com server buying feeding frenzy. Joe