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: Scumbria who wrote (67341)	10/25/1998 4:57:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 186894

Scrumbia, >>>The massively inflated pricing of server chips makes them an attractive target for competitors. How long do you think Intel will be able to maintain their monopoly in this arena? <<< When they start calling it AMDA32, NSMA64 or WinPaq then I will start to think there might be something wrong with my investment. Mary

To: Scumbria who wrote (67341)	10/25/1998 6:28:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria - Re: " The massively inflated pricing of server chips makes them an attractive target for competitors. " That's the spirit, Scumbria ! You love those brain dead companies that like to P*SS in the swimming pool before jumping in ! Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (67341)	10/25/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<The massively inflated pricing of server chips makes them an attractive target for competitors. How long do you think Intel will be able to maintain their monopoly in this arena?> Would you say that Intel's success in 4-way Xeon servers was partly due to Digital's inflated pricing of their Alpha servers? Besides, Intel hardly has a monopoly in server chips. But if you're talking about x86-compatible server chips, then you're right, Intel does have a "monopoly" in this area, if it's even big enough to be called one. I think the bigger challenge right now is convincing customers to switch from mainframes and RISC servers to x86-compatible ones. It's too risky for Intel's competitors like AMD to try and blaze the trail ahead of Intel. Most likely, competitors will try and follow behind as closely as possible. For example, I've heard that AMD's future K7 will be used in two-way servers, but I haven't seen anything about four-way K7 servers. AMD's own K7 foils shows one diagram with a two-way configuration, but none with four-way. Lower-end two-way x86 servers have been around for quite a while now, especially with the Pentium II. Because Intel has already established this low-end server market for x86, AMD will feel free to go after this area. But I also think that AMD will wait until the four-way Xeon systems become more established before even trying to go for four-way K7 servers (if it's even feasible with the K7). Oh, and one more thing, Scumbria. Unlike the retail market, the enterprise server market is about much more than just price. Tenchusatsu

To: Scumbria who wrote (67341)	10/26/1998 5:16:00 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The future of volume server chips is not likely to be a simple extension of desktop systems. The divergence Intel made in the Pentium Pro line, with architectural components specifically designed to enhance multiprocessor design, has been extended in the Xeon and will be further enhanced going forward. Features which make desktop chipsets fly will be increasingly different than server requirements. Look for enhanced cluster, I/O and processor communications capability on the server chips. These features are hard to design, require extensive buy-in from the OEMs, and strain the limits of fabrication technology. That in itself will force vendors with less breadth than Intel to make some hard choices about where they want to go. Intel is likely to increase their strength in this area, especially if they can line up IBM and SUN. HP is already in the boat, and CPQ will continue to invest heavily in Intel server technology independent of what happens with Alpha.