Chipguy, re: 1) Alpha and MIPS sales are now at trivial levels, probably
on the order of a few ten millions of dollars per quarter
combined. HP will not sell *any* Alphas after fall 2006.
SGI's High Performance Revenue [MIPS + IPF} has been declining in a growing market. If MIPS is trivial that means IPF rev at SGI has been declining.
re: 2) HP's HP-UX sales are approximately flat which indicates
that growth of IPF sales for running HP-UX approximately
equals the decline of PA-RISC sales. But more than half
of IPF sales has nothing to do with HP-UX and AFAICT that
proportion is increasing.
Standard servers were up more than ESS.
re: Combine 1) and 2) and it is clear that IPF sales growth is
much more than the decline in those three RISCs. Intel's
internal research shows that IPF market share growth comes
from: 40% friendly RISCs, 40% competing RISCs (POWER,
SPARC), and 20% from x86.
I can't trust internal research info from Intel. Also even if true this is meaningless unless you didn't mean 'market share growth' but simply 'market share' instead. OK let's presume that. x86 servers have simply continued a long growth trend. That trend does not show ANY impact that IPF is stealing share from x86. If it does than apparently x86 is stealing share from IPF,PA-RISC,Alpha,high end MIPS at a similar rate (or more in general, how much of PA-RISC, Power, Sparc, x86, etc.. market share comes from IPF?). Intel can claim whatever they want; imo it is really largely meaningless until anyone can claim solid growth of IPF/PA-RISC,high end MIPS,Alpha higher than the rate that the server market is growing. HP's website shows a large amount of Alpha and MIPS systems that can still be bought. I can't take your word for it that they amount to insignificant sales, and HP doesn't break it out. If Itanium sales are so great at HP why doesn't HP show it's growth more than compensates for the combined decline in their PA-RISC, MIPS, and Alpha systems?
Re: WTF? Nearly every IPF server sold running Windows represents
a sale taken away from x86. MS is a business and its choice
of PowerPC for Xbox 360 clearly shows it will *not* support
Intel products in any segment where it doesn't make sense on
its own merit. MS plans clearly show that IPF is an important
platform for Windows in scale-up and back office enterprise
servers now and going forward.
See above + Windows on I2 is not necessarily a win over x86, it's only an indication. MS clearly supports AMD64 over IPF valuing AMD64 rightfully many many many times more important for their business than IPF. It's one of their upwards growth opportunities that they take serious.
Regards,
Rink
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
