Dell Delivers More Dual Core
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...le.php/3525701

On 5 Aug 2005 17:43:31 -0700, "YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Dell Delivers More Dual Core
>http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...le.php/3525701

<yawn> Those servers seem like a REALLY weak answer to the dual-core
Opteron servers that the likes of HP and Sun are offering. However I
guess they do have a decent cost advantage that could help for the
really low-end server market. As soon as you start adding in lots of
memory and hard drives though that cost advantage quickly starts
getting lost in the noise, not to mention the fact that up-front
hardware costs are only about 10% of the TCO for a server.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2005 17:43:31 -0700, "YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Dell Delivers More Dual Core
>>http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...le.php/3525701
>
>
> <yawn> Those servers seem like a REALLY weak answer to the dual-core
> Opteron servers that the likes of HP and Sun are offering. However I
> guess they do have a decent cost advantage that could help for the
> really low-end server market. As soon as you start adding in lots of
> memory and hard drives though that cost advantage quickly starts
> getting lost in the noise, not to mention the fact that up-front
> hardware costs are only about 10% of the TCO for a server.
>

Yeah, did you notice how they just took a desktop system and called it a
server? They are so proud that you can replace the Pentium D "server"
chip with either Pentium 4 or Celeron "server" chips. Wow, look at all
of the choice. AMD is not in this space, for sure. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Tony Hill wrote:
>
>>On 5 Aug 2005 17:43:31 -0700, "YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dell Delivers More Dual Core
>>>http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...le.php/3525701
>>
>>
>><yawn> Those servers seem like a REALLY weak answer to the dual-core
>>Opteron servers that the likes of HP and Sun are offering. However I
>>guess they do have a decent cost advantage that could help for the
>>really low-end server market. As soon as you start adding in lots of
>>memory and hard drives though that cost advantage quickly starts
>>getting lost in the noise, not to mention the fact that up-front
>>hardware costs are only about 10% of the TCO for a server.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, did you notice how they just took a desktop system and called it a
> server? They are so proud that you can replace the Pentium D "server"
> chip with either Pentium 4 or Celeron "server" chips. Wow, look at all
> of the choice. AMD is not in this space, for sure. :-)
>

Actually, this is something that makes sense of AMD's decision to
move the Opty 1xx to socket 939. It lets them put a dual-core
"server" chip in a cheap system and pretend that makes it a real
server - much the same as Dell has done. Methinks AMD had a
sneak peak at Dell's plans and made a preemptive strike.

Rob Stow wrote:
> Actually, this is something that makes sense of AMD's decision to
> move the Opty 1xx to socket 939. It lets them put a dual-core
> "server" chip in a cheap system and pretend that makes it a real
> server - much the same as Dell has done. Methinks AMD had a
> sneak peak at Dell's plans and made a preemptive strike.

My impression about the Opteron 1xx move to S939 was that since Opteron
1xx seems to be used mostly in workstations, this way they could create
a workstation out of desktop parts. There's very little difference
between desktops and workstations anymore these days anyways.

Yousuf Khan