• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Official Itanium Prices

B

Bozo Galora

Diamond Member

just saw this at xbitlabs:


Itanium in Intel's Price List!

Posted 7/04/01 at 12:18 pm by Gavric

Intel has finally included Itanium CPUs (launched on May 30) in its official price-list. Now we can tell you the
exact prices of all the four models of Intel's "longest-to-create" product (hitherto the pricing of only the eldest
and the lowest models were disclosed):

Intel Itanium Processor
Price
800 MHz w/ 4M cache (.18)
$4227
800 MHz w/ 2M cache (.18)
$1980
733 MHz w/ 4M cache (.18)
$4227
733 MHz w/ 2M cache (.18)
$1177
 
Hmmmm ok so who's gona buy those at those kind of prices??? Thats just crazy I can buy an overkill overclocked computer for the price of one of those.
 
I think you forgot that Itanium is a 64bit processor so it won't run 32bit applications (i.e. everything we run). It's only made for servers and workstations so don't complain about the price cuz you won't ever have to use one.
 
Two things about it:

1) Yes, it will run 32bit apps. It's hardware-based emulation, so it's slow, but it runs.

2) You'll be using 64bit soon I'd imagine. Much like the change from the 16bit 286, to the 32bit 386, a 64bit platform of some sort will come to the end-user's desktop sometime in the future.
 
MS Already supports it, check their site, they have released Win XP for it already, HP has the same thing up on their site. Those are pretty decent prices, about the price of Suns offerings, in the 64bit market those are pretty typical. At present, HP-UX, Linux, and Win XP 64bit run on it. HP and SGI are the only companies selling boxes built off of them though, to the best of my knowledge.
 
heh, Athlons will be so much faster when it comes to 32bit... and I'll second Sledgehammer! yeah.

anyone knows what kind of ram or chipset this thing uses? I'd guess RAMBUSt
 
Diffusion, I meant for Sledgehammer (X86-64) not for Itanium. Intel processors always get the support from Microsoft. I'm saying there will never be a native X86-64 implementation of Windows.
 


<< Diffusion, I meant for Sledgehammer (X86-64) not for Itanium. Intel processors always get the support from Microsoft. I'm saying there will never be a native X86-64 implementation of Windows. >>


Much like the Athlon is a RISC core emulating x86 instructions, the sledgehammer is supposed to be a 64 bit RISC chip which emulates a 32 bit x86 chip, thereby getting high speeds at 32 bit apps. Therefore, there will not need to be any new support, other then drivers for chipsets and stuff. Honestly, I would like it if Sun would step in here and kick Intels ass. Sun has 900mhz UltraSPARC III chips with 8mb of cache, and they are supposed to hit 1.4ghz soon, on top of which, the replacement for the E10k is just around the corner, keep in mind that the E10k supports 64 processors, and its replacement supposedly supports 72 chips, and they are UltraSPARC IIIs. If Sun gets its act together, they could gain quite some market share, especially considering their low prices, and the fact that their solutions are more scalable then any thing intel turns out (this side of stuff like their old Paragon supercomputers, dunno what Supers intel makes these days).
Edit: Pardon me, Ultra IIIs have up to 8mb of cache each. You need an 8 way Xeon box to mache the cache of 2 Ultra IIIs.
 
Hmmmm wouldnt that be kinda like eleminating the competition or something. I mean M$ not supporting the hammer series is just basically killing AMD. Are there any kind of antitrust lawsuit things that apply?
 
No antitrust suit against MS is possible in this case, because they are not eliminating THEIR direct competition.

Face it gentlemen, as much as I myself would like Intel to get a good a$$-whooping, it ain't gonna happen. They are simply too widely recognized and supported.

AMD has a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong road ahead, should they try to usurp Intel.
 


<< Why would you buy a 4MB 733Mhz when you can get an 800 at the same price? Or is that a misprint? >>


You would buy such a chip if you alreaqdy had a 733 system, and wanted to drop a second processor in. In terms of why the price is the same, maybe the yield of 800s is high enough now that they dont really need to charge more, so it all comes down to the cost of the cache.
 
&quot;You would buy such a chip if you alreaqdy had a 733 system, and wanted to drop a second processor in.&quot;

We're talking about an unreleased product, I don't think very many fall into the needing a second CPU category.
 


<< &quot;You would buy such a chip if you alreaqdy had a 733 system, and wanted to drop a second processor in.&quot;

We're talking about an unreleased product, I don't think very many fall into the needing a second CPU category. >>

You can currently buy systems from HP and SGI, many developers have already bought such systems. I would hardly consider that unreleased.
Apologies will be accepted. 😉
 
The 4MB cache chips are little pricey but the 2MB ones aren't that bad.

At work we just bought 2 dozen rack mount dual P3 1Ghz with 1Ghz SDRAM for $4500 each.

That's canadian, so $3k US. A single 800 MHz w/ 2M cache (.18) with machine would probably outperform those and when you get around to adding the rest of hte stuff wouldn't cost that much more.

These aren't marketting to you and me, they are marketted to big business. $2k for a CPU isn't that big a deal.
 


<< The 4MB cache chips are little pricey but the 2MB ones aren't that bad.

At work we just bought 2 dozen rack mount dual P3 1Ghz with 1Ghz SDRAM for $4500 each.

That's canadian, so $3k US. A single 800 MHz w/ 2M cache (.18) with machine would probably outperform those and when you get around to adding the rest of hte stuff wouldn't cost that much more.

These aren't marketting to you and me, they are marketted to big business. $2k for a CPU isn't that big a deal. >>


Not quite, starting price on the HP machine 8000$.
 
&quot;You can currently buy systems from HP and SGI, many developers have already bought such systems.&quot;

And how many of the dual capable systems do you think are being sold with 1 CPU? I highly doubt the engineering sample systems Intel was shipping to companies were dual capable with 1 CPU. If I know I can get an 800 at the same price of a 733, I'm not buying a system with a 733 in it.
 
Considering that all the Itanium systems at present seem to be using the same motherboard and chasis, and that the dual chip systems cost 7000-8000$ more then the single chip systems, I would imagine quite a few are shipped with only one chip. I cannot verify the thing about boards being the same, but as everyone is selling identical machines, with no variation in motherboard specs, it would not surprize me. BTW None of these companies distinguish between their single processor and dual processor systems in terms of machine name, so there is additional circumstantial evidence right there.
 
Pardon me, another issue, the prices are the same if you go direct from intel, from vendors they are not, it just means that vendors make more profit from 800 systems then 733 systems.
 
I'm not sure if anything &quot;official&quot; ever came from xbit. 😉 They're just one notch above theinquirer, if you ask me. 😉

Just because xbit posts that the price of the 733 and 800 are the same, certainly doesn't make it true.

Scouzer... You think that price is a ripoff? Show me a comparable product for significantly less, and then we'll talk.

Diffusion... Very nice rational you brought in to a thread that was quickly turning into yet another &quot;Let's bash intel even though we have no idea what we're talking about&quot; thread. 😉

🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top