To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It costs somewhere between 300 and 500 million dollars to do the R&D for a new processor, if you want to stay competitive with Intel.
Intel can afford this because they tend to sell 100s of millions of each new chip so the cost the R&D adds to the part is 3 or 4 dollars.
Sun can't afford to do it because even if they're doing 1/10 of Intel's market share, they have to add 30 or 40 dollars to the price of a chip.
The exact numbers were different 10 years ago when HP got out of the processor business and sold the wide word architecture to Intel as a basis for Itanic, but at that time HP was the #2 computer maker in the world and couldn't make money competing against Intel.
Sun's a much smaller company and has an even worse position with respect to competing with Intel. They're about where Intergraph was in '89, except that unlike Intergraph, they don't have the option of dropping their own processor and going to using Intel, er, wait, they've already started doing that. . .
Sun's dead Jim.
Sun can't afford to do it because even if they're doing 1/10 of Intel's market share, they have to add 30 or 40 dollars to the price of a chip.
A V890 on the Sun store with 16 cores and 128 GB is over $200K. Do you really think that adding even $1000 to each chip makes a significant difference here?
The thing you do not seem to get is that Sun is not competing with Intel. They are competing with HP and IBM , whose non-x86 prices are similar and quite likely worse.
A HP Integrity 16 core / 128 GB box with top-end Itaniums is easily over $200K, but the dual core Itaniums themselves list (from Intel) at maybe $4K each. HP, of course, charges a lot more than that for each CPU (so much for the benefits of an "industry standard CPU" - last I checked, the price vs PA-RISC was about the same) , but the point is, what does Intel get here, 10, maybe 15 percent of the sale?
Its the system sale that is important.
Besides, if CPU speed was what kept a server company afloat, Alpha would still be here, and Sun would have died 10 years ago.
Sun's a much smaller company and has an even worse position with respect to competing with Intel. They're about where Intergraph was in '89, except that unlike Intergraph, they don't have the option of dropping their own processor and going to using Intel, er, wait, they've already started doing that. . .
I don't see how the two compare. Intergraph core business was in the workstation market, not servers and they never designed their own processor line completely in-house. The Clipper processors they used at the time were developed by Fairchild and then the line was bought by Intergraph. The only 100% in-house design they had (the C5) was ultimately axed. On top of that I don't see why Sun couldn't transition to Intel processors. Their newly reborn x86 business is doing very well and suggests the contrary. Their success there was also quite surprising as they entered that very crowded market very late.





Member since:
2005-11-05
SPARC's dead
Please enlighten me as to why Sparc is dead?