Intel says only real servers use Xeons

Dom · May 28, 2003, 03:29 AM

CHIP GIANT Intel has launched a massive marketing attack worldwide this week by introducing something that it's calling the "real server" campaign.

The campaign wants to persuade small and medium sized businesses to choose the right server for their computing needs.

Intel didn't say how much it is spending on this big push.

And Intel claims people are making do with desktop PCs for servers, obviously a bad mistake.

Because while a desktop PC might use a Pentium III or Pentium IV to adequately do the job, a machine using a Xeon chip will do it so much better, from the Intel point of view.

But no-one journalist we know has ever yet been able to tease out of Intel the real difference between a Xeon and a Pentium IV anyway, despite persistent questioning.

The stock answer is that the Xeon includes certain elements that make it more suitable than a Pentium IV for the job.

In fact, the delta between server processors and desktop processors pricing has shrunk significantly over the last year, suggesting that there's not that much difference between them at all.

There's still a delta though. Check out this chart. Here, the 2.8GHz Xeon MP chip (1) costs $3692, the Xeon 2.8GHz $433 (2), and the Pentium 4 2.8GHz $278 (3). The first chip has 1MB of cache, but that's a lot of dollar difference, while the Xeon (2) has less features than the Pentium IV (3). Go figure that.

New Intel technology gets put into desktops before it reaches server chips, if it ever reaches server chips at all. When the 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon with 1MB of cache is launched (in Q3 this year), it will cost a mere $690.

For small and medium sized businesses, particularly in emerging markets, a desktop PC might well be more than up to the task of serving files and printing, particularly so if it's running an OS with a small footprint.

We'd say a really, really good cheap and cheerful server chip would be the Pentium M, which actually will run quite happily on non-Centrino chipsets. We say that, but Intel, it just say no...

_____________________
Source: TheInquirer

nForcer · May 28, 2003, 04:33 AM

I can wait to read the ramarks from the pro-AMD users about this one. Everyone get your stupid comments ready! .... ready?..... NOW! :P

DriveEuro · May 28, 2003, 05:12 AM

I totally agree. Some people are just too afraid of a change or competition. I guess Intel is too stupid to realize that competition brings better overall components. If there was no competition it would be like communism. No one would have a choice. The cheapest possibly made components for all....

rogeld · May 28, 2003, 05:17 AM

Don't worry nForcer, I think you made a stupid enough comment to cover the whoel gambit for everyone. Saves a lot of time, thanks.

DriveEuro · May 28, 2003, 05:20 AM

They only say that because they want to try to reassure some users that their chips are better. They're just trying to boost themselves up...

nForcer · May 28, 2003, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rogeld
Don't worry nForcer, I think you made a stupid enough comment to cover the whoel gambit for everyone. Saves a lot of time, thanks.

I told you someone would make a stupid comment.. Thanks for kicking it off rogeld!

nForcer · May 28, 2003, 06:17 AM

DriveEuro - I agree with your thoughts on competition. Its a good thing for consumers.

ToshiroOC · May 28, 2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DriveEuro
I guess Intel is too stupid to realize that competition brings better overall components. If there was no competition it would be like communism. No one would have a choice. The cheapest possibly made components for all....

But why would Intel want competition? Why would Intel want to give the customer a choice other than their own? Why would Intel want to provide the cheapest possibly made components for all? They're a business, and while it may be very nice for the consumer to have competition, no real corporation wants competition because it cuts their profits down and makes their survival in their field indefinite. Intel isn't too stupid to realize that competition brings better overall components - they are smart enough to realize that competition isn't good for them as a corporation.

DriveEuro · May 28, 2003, 10:35 AM

Well, yeah, you caught me up. Intel doesn't want competition and just wants to make shitty chips really. But because of AMD Intel is making better chips to compete against the AMD line... Meh, I can't fight. I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote that.

ToshiroOC · May 28, 2003, 11:48 AM

Don't worry about it, I got what you meant. Its a shame, but its better than just having Intel or just having AMD, no?

nForcer · May 28, 2003, 03:26 PM

Exactly! If we only had AMD - we'd still be dealing with cooling issues! If we only had Intel - we couldn't afford any of thier high quality chips!

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 28, 2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nForcer
Exactly! If we only had AMD - we'd still be dealing with cooling issues! If we only had Intel - we couldn't afford any of thier high quality chips!

oh its a well know fact INTEL cpus RUN HOTTER than AMD's .... it just intels handle the extreme heat better ... the down clock them selfs

I ran amd and built and repaird hunderds of amd systems ....... nenver have i had 1 singlwe heat problem that is the cpu's fault...

usaly it they got the cpu voltage set up to high, improper cooling/severly underrated cooler/ inproper installation of cooling, #1 couse not removeing the tab that says "remove before installing"

intels run hotter have higher temps than AMD's so if we just had amd then we would all be ok... with intel you pay a premuim for a cpu that slower and much more expensive than a much cheaper and faster amd based system... amd systems often cost less than 50-75% less than intel systems and run "faster " than thier intel counterparts..........

for exaple i bulit a $300 amd system in the past thats 3dmark supassed a $2,200 intel system sold for video editing in the stores......... thats insane

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 28, 2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom
CHIP GIANT Intel has launched a massive marketing attack worldwide this week by introducing something that it's calling the "real server" campaign.

The campaign wants to persuade small and medium sized businesses to choose the right server for their computing needs.

Intel didn't say how much it is spending on this big push.

And Intel claims people are making do with desktop PCs for servers, obviously a bad mistake.

Because while a desktop PC might use a Pentium III or Pentium IV to adequately do the job, a machine using a Xeon chip will do it so much better, from the Intel point of view.

But no-one journalist we know has ever yet been able to tease out of Intel the real difference between a Xeon and a Pentium IV anyway, despite persistent questioning.

The stock answer is that the Xeon includes certain elements that make it more suitable than a Pentium IV for the job.

In fact, the delta between server processors and desktop processors pricing has shrunk significantly over the last year, suggesting that there's not that much difference between them at all.

There's still a delta though. Check out this chart. Here, the 2.8GHz Xeon MP chip (1) costs $3692, the Xeon 2.8GHz $433 (2), and the Pentium 4 2.8GHz $278 (3). The first chip has 1MB of cache, but that's a lot of dollar difference, while the Xeon (2) has less features than the Pentium IV (3). Go figure that.

New Intel technology gets put into desktops before it reaches server chips, if it ever reaches server chips at all. When the 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon with 1MB of cache is launched (in Q3 this year), it will cost a mere $690.

For small and medium sized businesses, particularly in emerging markets, a desktop PC might well be more than up to the task of serving files and printing, particularly so if it's running an OS with a small footprint.

We'd say a really, really good cheap and cheerful server chip would be the Pentium M, which actually will run quite happily on non-Centrino chipsets. We say that, but Intel, it just say no...

_____________________
Source: TheInquirer

intel for when you really wanna pay to much and get to little

May 28, 2003, 05:12 AM	#3
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	I totally agree. Some people are just too afraid of a change or competition. I guess Intel is too stupid to realize that competition brings better overall components. If there was no competition it would be like communism. No one would have a choice. The cheapest possibly made components for all.... __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

May 28, 2003, 05:20 AM	#5
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	They only say that because they want to try to reassure some users that their chips are better. They're just trying to boost themselves up... __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

May 28, 2003, 10:35 AM	#9
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	Well, yeah, you caught me up. Intel doesn't want competition and just wants to make shitty chips really. But because of AMD Intel is making better chips to compete against the AMD line... Meh, I can't fight. I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote that. __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

May 28, 2003, 11:48 AM	#10
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	Don't worry about it, I got what you meant. Its a shame, but its better than just having Intel or just having AMD, no? __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

May 28, 2003, 03:29 AM	#1
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	Intel says only real servers use Xeons CHIP GIANT Intel has launched a massive marketing attack worldwide this week by introducing something that it's calling the "real server" campaign. The campaign wants to persuade small and medium sized businesses to choose the right server for their computing needs. Intel didn't say how much it is spending on this big push. And Intel claims people are making do with desktop PCs for servers, obviously a bad mistake. Because while a desktop PC might use a Pentium III or Pentium IV to adequately do the job, a machine using a Xeon chip will do it so much better, from the Intel point of view. But no-one journalist we know has ever yet been able to tease out of Intel the real difference between a Xeon and a Pentium IV anyway, despite persistent questioning. The stock answer is that the Xeon includes certain elements that make it more suitable than a Pentium IV for the job. In fact, the delta between server processors and desktop processors pricing has shrunk significantly over the last year, suggesting that there's not that much difference between them at all. There's still a delta though. Check out this chart. Here, the 2.8GHz Xeon MP chip (1) costs $3692, the Xeon 2.8GHz $433 (2), and the Pentium 4 2.8GHz $278 (3). The first chip has 1MB of cache, but that's a lot of dollar difference, while the Xeon (2) has less features than the Pentium IV (3). Go figure that. New Intel technology gets put into desktops before it reaches server chips, if it ever reaches server chips at all. When the 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon with 1MB of cache is launched (in Q3 this year), it will cost a mere $690. For small and medium sized businesses, particularly in emerging markets, a desktop PC might well be more than up to the task of serving files and printing, particularly so if it's running an OS with a small footprint. We'd say a really, really good cheap and cheerful server chip would be the Pentium M, which actually will run quite happily on non-Centrino chipsets. We say that, but Intel, it just say no... _____________________ Source: TheInquirer

May 28, 2003, 04:33 AM	#2
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	I can wait to read the ramarks from the pro-AMD users about this one. Everyone get your stupid comments ready! .... ready?..... NOW! :P

May 28, 2003, 05:17 AM	#4
rogeld DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 259 Rep Power: 0	Don't worry nForcer, I think you made a stupid enough comment to cover the whoel gambit for everyone. Saves a lot of time, thanks.

May 28, 2003, 06:17 AM	#7
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	DriveEuro - I agree with your thoughts on competition. Its a good thing for consumers.

May 28, 2003, 03:26 PM	#11
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	Exactly! If we only had AMD - we'd still be dealing with cooling issues! If we only had Intel - we couldn't afford any of thier high quality chips!