is...a Libertarian
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Dan, I think wbmw's calc based on the data posted by burn2learn is accurate. 7% market share is not bad for 1Q05.
I was really thinking about it from the perspective of Apple touting the benefits of its vector processor. In other words, I thought it was suppose to be something great and a whole lot better than SSE1/2/3 or 3DNow.
With that said I don't have a clue as to the engineering requirement and if it would work on x86. It sounds like it uses too much real estate and may not really offer all the benefits in the x86 world, given the alternatives, that Apple marketing is pushing in the PPC world.
Edit: On marketshare, it may be small but to AMD an incremental 4+ million units a year is substantial.
From this vantage point, it looks like your navy is having a mutiny. Those EM64T cruiser captains are joining up with the USS Sledgehammer and firing on the battlewagon Itanic. It appears that many of the Itanic's complement have already abandoned ship and have joined the EM64T forces.
Being much smaller, it will take the Sledgehammer and the EM64T cruisers time, but no doubt in the end their combined firepower will overcome the expensive armor the Itanic is equipped with.
Apparently a mountain out of a mole hill. I am not sure why it was deleted, but it was a non-sequitor response to the discussion that you eventually joined in on.
If someone has the text, they can post it again or PM you. That chipguy found it funny or a "zinger" is ammusing. Birds of a feather ...
wbmw, then I am not sure what I was reading wrong on reseller Mike's list.
http://epscontest.com/prices/rm_2005_01_03.htm
Looking in the Xeon column, it looks like only 800 Mhz FSB product was being offered, which I would assume based on your answer was 64-bit. If you want to explain it to me offline, send me a PM.
Unfortunately, the ships it sank were part of allied fleets -- the USS MIPS, USS Alpha, and the USS PA-RISC. In early engagements against opposing forces, the Itanic has lost each and every time.
We're talking battleships and he brings up a light cruiser.
Maybe a light cruiser, but an AEGIS cruiser that was able to soundly defeat the Itanic in engagement after engagement. In fact, they have completely run them out of the Sea of Workstation and made them scarce in the 4-way ocean.
No worries, they are hunting down the badly damaged leaking Itanic and will send it to the bottom in due course.
wbmw, Intel formerly offered 800Mhz FSB 32-bit Xeons? I don't follow Intel's product line closely enough to know if they did.
No kidding? What was your battleship called? USS MIPS,
SS Alpha, or USS PA-RISC? I sure hope you weren't
picked up by the USS POWER or the USS SPARC unless
you were planning for another dip.
No, it was the the USS Sledgehammer.
Actually, I am very surprised. I was under the impression that almost all of Intel's processor production was at 90 nm and therefore assumed that most of the Xeon's sold were 64-bit enabled (outside of replacement product).
Like I observed, Dell doesn't even offer 32-bit Xeon's anymore. I don't know when they were 100% converted, but I would ask why would they offer 32-bit product at all?
Excellent point, but I was looking at Reseller Mike's product list from last January.
http://epscontest.com/prices/rm_2005_01_03.htm
This is by no means authoratative, but I would expect Intel to be mostly selling 64-bit product on 90 nm.
When did Intel stop selling 32 bit Xeons?
I don't know that they have. But it certainly looks like they are selling mostly 64-bit enabled Xeons.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/index.htm
That is unless you are claiming Intel is producing a lot of 130nm product.
Looking at reseller Mike's list, no 32-bit Xeon are listed. Likewise, looking at Dell's website there are no 32-bit Xeon's readily available, even as customization options.
Actually, I think the call was I2 - you sunk my battleship.
wbmw, again I think what Dan is referring to is this:
In total, 92,000 Opteron systems shipped during the quarter, led by HP, with just under 12,000 shipments, and Sun Microsystems Inc., which sold nearly 9,000 Opteron servers. The vast majority of Opteron sales, however, were made by smaller, lesser-known vendors.
Intel's 64-bit Xeon processor accounted for 797,000 systems sold during the quarter.
Admittedly a small subset of all "servers", and its meaningfulness is left to the reader.
92,000/(92,000+797,000) = 10.348%
Here is a off the wall question for those who know MP design -- is there value in and how hard would it be for AMD to graft Altivec instructions onto Athlon64. Maybe they could jettison the unused 3DNow instructions if real estate were an issue.
Would there be a benefit to Apple developers that might entice Apple to look harder at AMD chips?
What it shows is that if you look at systems powered by Xeons and Opterons, the server chips of the two manufacturers, which obviously excludes Celeron and Semperon "Servers", than AMD has about 10% market share.
I think that was the point that Dan was trying to make. You may not think it is meaningful, but that would be a seperate discussion.
Morgan Stanley had positive comments on AMD this morning.
Look here:
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6481251
Do the math.
Except that the development machines are P-4 3.6Ghz and are available immediately to Apple developers.
Console processors are static. They don't have crank up the Mhz every few months. Much cheaper to produce in the long run.
kpf, as you point out the biggest pain will be borne by the independent dealers. As to running OS-X on a standard PC, it might happen, but not supported by Apple. In other words, you may be able to buy OS-X and install it on your home built PC, but making it run will be your reponsibility.
Apple will only support Macs. The faithful are generally faithful because they are not techies, so they will probably be willing to pay the small premium for a genuine Mac.
Entirely true. Macs are not cheap, so why would you spend big bucks for an obsolete product. Only true mac shops with need will justify purchases.
I expect Mac sales to plummet going forward.
I am a little surprised that we are not seeing any reaction at all in Intel's stock price.
mas, as I have said many times in the past IPF is HP's in house chip. However, if HP really does move to 16 or 32 way x86-64 chips, I see a slow but definite end to IPF. Intel will be stuck throwing resources at a chip that will always be behind Power at the very high-end, and whose target market is being eaten from below by x86.
If the inquirer stories are true, Intel is already transferring a lot of resources from IPF to x86 development. This can't be a good thing.
wbmw, here you go.
Apple Is Poised to Shift To Intel as Chip Supplier
Apple Computer Inc. and Intel Corp., long on opposite sides of one of technology's biggest divides, appear finally to be coming together.
Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., has begun briefing some partners about plans to begin shifting its Macintosh computer line next year to Intel chips, according to industry executives and people familiar with the briefings. Apple has said it expects to announce the move today, these people said.
The move would be a major change in strategy for Apple and a high-profile win for Intel, of Santa Clara, Calif. It could be a blow to International Business Machines Corp. and Freescale Semiconductor Inc., suppliers of the PowerPC chips that Apple has long used in its Mac systems. Intel is the primary supplier of chips for personal computers that run on Microsoft Corp.'s Windows, the Mac rival that dominates PC operating systems.
Apple's decision, coming after years of industry speculation about such a deal and behind-the-scenes lobbying by Intel, underscores how longtime allegiances are shifting because of competitive pressures and users' changing preferences. Such a move could help Apple ensure that its Mac systems remain competitive with rivals like Dell Inc., of Round Rock, Texas. It could be a prelude to collaboration with Intel in developing new devices for homes and offices. And it might help Apple reduce its prices, a longstanding disadvantage; an industry executive suggested that the computer maker sought, and won, more-attractive chip prices from Intel than it could get from IBM, of Armonk, N.Y.
The change also makes it at least theoretically possible that some Macintosh systems could more efficiently run Windows and application programs for that operating system, though it isn't clear that Apple intends to encourage that practice.
The shift also could cause disruptions for current Macintosh users. For one thing, software companies may have to adapt programs to run on Intel's so-called x86 chips. Many Macintosh users have recently expressed opposition to such a switch; some equate it with Apple going over to the "the dark side" of Wintel, as the near-duopoly of Intel chips and Windows software is sometimes called.
Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive and co-founder, is expected to explain the shift today during a keynote speech at the company's annual conference for software developers in San Francisco, the industry executives said. Paul Otellini, Intel's CEO, may take part in the presentation, an industry executive said.
Apple recently briefed IBM and other major software partners on its plans, according to people familiar with those briefings. On the other hand, some Apple watchers said that, given Mr. Jobs's mercurial reputation, they won't be sure a change will happen until a formal announcement.
The Wall Street Journal reported on May 23 that the companies were in talks that could lead to Apple's adopting Intel microprocessors. The article said the announcement could come as soon as today's conference. CNET Networks Inc.'s News.com on Friday reported that Apple will announce the transition plan today. It reported that Apple will move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. Industry executives over the weekend also described a transition that will extend into 2007.
Spokespersons for Apple, Intel, IBM and Freescale, which is based in Austin, Texas, said their companies had no comment.
Apple's partnership with Intel, while a high-profile breakup for Apple and IBM, wouldn't be disastrous for Big Blue. IBM has recently persuaded Microsoft, Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co. to use its chips in their next-generation video-game machines, a business that is expected to dwarf sales for Apple's hardware over the next few years. Microsoft had been using Intel chips and Sony its own chips, while Nintendo was an IBM customer that Big Blue wanted to retain.
It's also unlikely that Apple's shift to Intel chips will trigger a dramatic change in the PC industry's balance of power. Apple remains a niche player, with only 2.3% of new-PC shipments in the first three months of this year, according to International Data Corp. One reason is Apple's meager presence in the huge corporate market, where Windows PCs dominate.
Yet Apple is thriving in ways others in the PC business aren't. Unit sales of Macs increased 43% in the first quarter, outpacing the industry growth rate by nearly four times. One selling point has been the rarity of virus programs that successfully target the Macintosh operating system, an advantage that a change in chips isn't expected to affect. Apple's hugely successful iPod music player has also enabled the company to diversify its business and help attract first-time computer customers.
The Mac business also has been aided by innovative products like the one-piece iMac and Mac mini. A person close to Apple said Intel's chips could enable the company to create powerful new Mac products that are even smaller and thinner. IBM's chips, partly because of the heat they give off, have held back Apple designs for some compact products, this person said.
Apple executives have considered adapting its popular operating software for Intel chips and selling it as a separate product in competition to Windows. That idea has always been rejected out of fear it would hurt Apple's hardware business, and such a move doesn't appear to be part of the company's current plans.
Mr. Jobs has often pointed out technical advantages of the PowerPC chips for some chores. Industry observers also believe that IBM and Freescale have sold their chips at attractive prices, reducing the potential appeal of shifting the Macintosh systems to Intel technology. But Apple hasn't been able to meet some public commitments for increasing the speed of its desktop and laptop lines. In an often-cited performance measure known as clock speed, Macs lag behind PCs.
Intel, the world's largest chip maker in terms of revenue, has had its own stumbles in improving its products. But it has won kudos recently for chips known as Pentium M that draw little power, a big selling point for laptop computers. Egged on by rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Intel also has been laying aggressive plans for boosting computing speed by putting two or more electronic brains on the same piece of silicon. It already offers the dual-processor chips for desktop computers, and will have a version for laptops early next year.
Moreover, Intel's dominant position in PC chips has allowed it to offer marketing subsidies to computer makers that are important in the narrow-margin PC business. Apple is likely to qualify for such subsidies and other financial help from Intel.
It couldn't be determined whether Intel has agreed to offer some modifications of its microprocessors for Apple alone or will sell it standard chips, nor is it clear whether Intel would supply other accessory chips for the Macintosh as part of the deal.
Intel has reason to go all out for the endorsement from Apple, Silicon Valley's most successful style setter. Under Mr. Jobs, Apple has delivered cutting-edge hardware designs and delivered a hit music player, the iPod, that has become an icon for fashion and technology. Apple also could be a target for Intel to sell a variety of other chips, including those used for wireless Internet connections.
But the deal with Apple could raise some thorny issues for Intel and other customers and allies in the PC industry, including Dell. Some might consider relying more heavily on AMD chips.
IBM jointly developed the PowerPC chips with Apple and Motorola Inc., which spun off its semiconductor business as Freescale. IBM's products include the G5 chip, which is used in high-end desktop Macintosh systems. Freescale supplies chips for Apple laptops and its Mini system.
For IBM, the Apple loss costs more in terms of prestige than in profits. Apple's orders for PowerPC chips represented about 5% of the capacity of IBM's costly semiconductor manufacturing plant in East Fishkill, N.Y., one industry executive said.
Unlike most computer makers, IBM has continued making its own microprocessors rather than farming out production to semiconductor houses. But IBM's own needs aren't sufficient to justify the capital investment in the $3 billion plant, so it has taken on the role of making advanced chips for other companies as well.
IBM announced at the end of last year, that all the plant's capacity is spoken for, primarily by the three makers of videogame consoles. IBM itself uses about one-third of the capacity for its own needs, and it also serves as a chip foundry making specialized semiconductors for telecommunications vendors.
Still, the plant has been a source of continuing difficulty. IBM's technology group, responsible for chip-making, reported a $252 million loss in 2003, the last year for which IBM broke out the results. Some customers who were frustrated by continued problems getting advanced chips from the plant defected to Taiwanese suppliers. IBM now says the problems are behind it, but it has declined to discuss whether the plant is operating profitably.
Apple was a particularly troubled account for IBM. In 2004, Apple publicly complained that delays in getting chips from IBM were to blame for its own sales shortfalls. More recently, an industry executive said, Apple tried to exploit its position as a marquee account to seek better terms than Big Blue could justify financially. Intel must have offered lower prices, the executive said.
Apple's decision is likely to be viewed with mixed emotions by Macintosh users. "For the vitriolic Mac masses, this is going to be perceived as a bit of heresy only because they've long rallied against the evils of Wintel," said Mike Rosenfelt, a venture capitalist and co-founder of Power Computing Corp., a maker of Mac "clone" computers that was acquired by Apple in 1997.
Mike Homer, a Silicon Valley veteran and former Apple executive, believes Apple's decision to shift to Intel chips is driven largely by the growing importance of laptops, which have become an increasingly critical source of growth for Apple and the industry as a whole. Apple has been repeatedly stymied in its attempts to create a laptop based on the G5 microprocessor by IBM, because of the excessive heat of the chip. Intel, on the other hand, has made chips for mobile devices one of its key focuses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111791696757050994,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
but honestly I won't believe it till I read it on a reputable news site like say CNN.
How about the Wall Street Journal?
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111791696757050994,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
Most Mac users don't know or care what's under the hood. They use macs because they are easy to use and user friendly. If apple restricts the MacOS to apple designed machines, they can maintain their appeal (rather than try and qualify everything under the sun).
The mac will benefit from having more software overtime, as I assume it is easier to port a program from OS to OS than it is to write to another chip as well. Maybe they will include some Wine type program that will let Windows programs run natively for those few programs that people can't live without.
No, I think they reduced the price some time ago. Apple may have been motivated by the lawsuit or they may have responded to after market replacement kits that sell for about $40.
Apple will replace the battery for $99 in any iPod.
Apple sues people to keep them quite before official announcements. I doubt either company would want to risk the wrath of Jobs to make an announcment a couple of days before the WWDC. Also, I would expect that they are under a NDA.
So does OfficeXP.
IPF is Intel's rapidly expanding
beachhead into the half of the market it doesn't own yet.
AMD can only sit and watch with its nose pressed against
the window.
Again, your observations are taken in isolation. x86-64 is the rapidly expanding beachhead into the half of the market that AMD doesn't currently serve. 10 years ago, x86 market share was non-existent, 3 years ago it was a third of the market, last year it was a majority. See a trend?
AMD has little to fear. IPF was originally positioned against Opteron, but those heady days are long past. Now HPC and HP's hope of competing for big iron are about all that is left.
IIRC Intel and HP presentations have indicated IPF has
an 84% success rate in competitive bidding against RISC
They don't even have a 84% success rate against PA-RISC. Hard to believe it is better against Power and SPARC.
Actually, it would make more sense for Sun to buy Cray to expand their Opteron line into the high-end. However, this would put another bullet into SPARC, it the pain of that might be too much. There is also the curse of Cray to beware of.
From a business point of view K5 was a far bigger disaster.
From a business point of view the K5 did what it was needed to do -- it allowed a clone maker to transition to propietary product while remaining a viable business.
But all that is ancient history. Since then, AMD has designed plenty of innovation in their chip including 64 bit and dual core. In the here and now, AMD designed x86-64 chips are the best performing x86 server/desktop chips on the market.
If he already has DSL, get a router or wireless router and avoid the hassle.
@Joey AMD doesnt seem the type of company to keep anything quiet. Selective disclosure, I guess.
Obviously you are clueless as to SEC regulations.
OT: When did the moniker change from ..."the" ... to "is"?
I don't run a hardware enthusiast site, nor do I decide for them what they test and what they don't. However, I can read AMD's spec sheet and see that they have lower power processors than those tested. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate a conclusion from there.
wbmw, you are as well aware as anyone that K8 comes in low power varieties. These were not tested in the comparisons you site, but if you were to extrapolate based on the chips power consumption versus the power consumtion of the chips tested it is not hard to see the Peter has a point.