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: Paul Engel who wrote (58962)	6/27/1998 1:34:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul - The relative high prices of XEON CPUs are actually quite LOW compared to their real competition - Alpha and UltraSParc CPUs/workstations. Do you have an estimate for the competitive pricing for Alpha parts vs. Xeon? I think the appropriate comparison would probably be CPU/chipset combination. I doubt that there is any way to get the 'real' data on Alpha costs since the majority were internally used by DEC and they could claim whatever 'cost' they wanted. Likewise outside sales of Alpha parts would not reflect real costs since much of the underlying engineering work (as well as some fixed costs) were probably subsidized by DEC. Intel will be in a better position than DEC ever was to determine the real costs and market price for Alpha.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (58962)	6/27/1998 1:48:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "The relative high prices of XEON CPUs are actually quite LOW compared to their real competition - Alpha and UltraSParc CPUs/workstations." This is THE key point. Not only has Intel reached a performance level that makes them very competitive at the mid to high end, but they have done so while raising their asps to new highs and still offering a unmatched price/performance ratio. Move over Alpha & Sparc. There's a new player in town. EP

To: Paul Engel who wrote (58962)	6/27/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: Buckwheat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: [And if a change to programmable microcode saves Intel's bacon, then the Xeon will get to market with only a minor delay for 4-way SMP servers - and of course, immediately with no delay for one or two-way CPU workstations.] EXCERPT FROM PC WEEK ARTICLE "Intel's 440GX chip set, for Xeon workstations, is not affected by any bugs, officials said. While it is technically possible to use the 440GX in Xeon servers, Intel does not expect system makers to do so, since it will not scale beyond two processors, and the price/performance benefits will be negligible." REGARDS Buckwheat

To: Paul Engel who wrote (58962)	6/27/1998 5:00:00 PM
From: Buckwheat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: [As for future profits, the XEON is a key pillar in Intel's new segmented market approach. It will provide Intel with a high performance/high margin processor configuration in a segment with no x86 competition.] Just thought I would remind you that the market for Intel multi-processor systems is not mature by a long shot (4 or 8 CPU configurations). The same can be said for the market's trust in their ability to run mission critical applications. I'm sure the chipset/cpu conflict flaw did a lot to bolster mpu market's faith in their abilities. news.com EXCERPT OF ABOVE LINK {{Most server vendors, including IBM and Compaq, have said that they will not release 8-way Intel servers until late 1998 or early 1999, when Intel releases a standard chipset for 8-way processing. A number of other companies with similar technology have either been acquired or have changed their business models because the market for high-end Intel-based servers is an extremely small one. Corollary is the prime example, having been purchased by Intel last year as the chipmaking giant moved to accelerate development of multiprocessor systems built around the Xeon Pentium II due out next week. Even with Intel's efforts, the market for systems such as HP's LXr Pro8 has not taken off, and isn't likely to anytime soon, analysts say. "We're not waiting for [this market] to explode in the mainstream anytime soon," said Joyce Tompsett Becknell, director of distributed computing research at In-Stat. "In our research, most customers are buying 1- or 2-way systems. Windows NT certainly doesn't scale up to eight processors, but that's not where Microsoft is playing," she noted. "Scale" refers to the performance of Windows NT in high-end multiprocessing environments. NT 4.0, according to many, can only take effective advantage of four processors at once in conventional servers. "It is an emerging market. NT is only now scaling to take advantage of 8-way systems, but it scales more than some have realized," Axil's Nilsson acknowledged. Becknell sees companies focusing more on tying 4-processor systems together rather than buying a single system with eight chips because they are looking for ways to increase system reliability. Even beyond the introduction of new Intel chips and chipsets, analysts say companies will be cautious about adopting new systems for critical programs that need to constantly running without interruption.}} REGARDS Buckwheat

To: Paul Engel who wrote (58962)	6/29/1998 1:16:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, Re: "The Xeon Bug could have been a showstopper. However, I have heard from reliable sources that Intel was able to identify the cause of the "bug" (a L2 cache conflict when 4 CPUs were in use with the 450 NX) and have been able to correct (or fix) it. One explanation that was offered was that Intel has made appropriate changes to the PROGRAMMABLE MICROCODE features in their Pentium II device - to correct the fault." As I recall, when Intel introduced the Pentium II, they said that there would be the feature of writable, programmable, or flashable microcode, whose purpose was to fix bugs quickly. At the time, Intel said that there would be 2K (bytes) available for this. At the time, I had a couple of questions about it: 1. Is 2K enough? I guess you have to use it judiciously. 2. How do you get this microcode "close enough" to the logic it needs to fix? Generally, microcode, or control store is positioned all over the chip, to be as close to the logic it needs to control as it can. (Maybe it's static?). In any event, if Intel did use this writable control store to fix the Xeon bug, they are to be commended, as you say, for putting a feature into the Pentium II core that paid off (as they continue to use more and more mainframe tricks all the time. ;-)) Tony