AMD Opteron

Microsoft believed that many of its customers were very interested in the AMD implementation. When Microsoft ran applications written for 32-bit chips on an Opteron server loaded with the new Windows 64-bit operating system, the programs performed considerably better than on 32-bit Windows. Microsoft was not willing to place all its bets just on Itanium 2. Besides, AMD had been much faster in launching the consumer version of Opteron chips than Intel. The leading Linux software-maker, Red Hat offered Linux for the Opteron. IBM offered a compatible version of its heavy-duty DB2 database software. Some IBM customers were already using the technology, in beta [test] form, and they were planning the chip for deployment by early 2003. However, till late 2002 the top-tier PC makers, such as Dell and HP had not announced plans to build Opteron-based machines. Intel believed that it had a significant competitive advantage due to its longstanding relationships with software and hardware-makers.

A handful of specialized server-makers, like Angstrom Microsystems had signed on to use Opteron. AMD had also sold Opteron-based evaluation units to customers such as the Hollywood special effects house Pixar Animation Studios (producers of the ‘’Toy Story’’ movies) that could use Opteron-based systems to produce its computer-generated movies faster and cheaper. Meanwhile, Sun, which was trying to open up its Solaris products to other architectures, was looking at using Opterons in some of its blade servers^[2] . The option would pit Opteron against Sun’s UltraSPARC processors. But Sun still looked like using Opteron.

HP, which developed the core of the Itanium architecture along with Intel, seemed to be placing all its bets on Itanium 2. It was not developing 64-bit processors on its own. Dell, a strong player in the PC market, was not a significant player in high-end corporate hardware. But Dell had plans to penetrate this market. Randy Groves, Dell’s Chief Technology Officer explained why his company was also seriously looking at Opteron:^[3]

“What makes this different from past AMD discussions is that until now AMD’s value proposition has been Intel compatibility at a lower cost. Now it’s not a pricing discussion. This is something Intel doesn’t have.”

But Dell unlike HP was keeping its options open. Dell would wait and see if AMD could make Opteron consistently in large volumes. Though AMD was more popular with consumers rather than businesses, Dell believed that AMD could move into the business server segment at a future date.

In early 2003, IBM announced it would be sharing technology and manufacturing know-how with AMD fueling speculation that Opteron and Athlon 64 would be manufactured in IBM’s plants. That would make it harder for Intel to convince customers to give up their existing software and move on to Itanium. IBM was also critical of Intel’s scalability claims. Intel’s new i8870 chipset supported up to four Itanium 2s in a Symmetrical Multiprocessing (SMP) configuration. Two 8870 chipsets were linked to allow a maximum of eight processors. IBM remained skeptical about such a scalability^[4] model. Depending on customer preference, IBM was willing to use Opteron in its servers but not Itanium 2.

^[1] AMD Opteron, The Road Ahead, CPU Planet, April 23, 2003.

^[2] A single circuit board populated with components such as processors, memory, and network connections that are usually found on multiple boards. Server blades are designed to slide into existing servers. Server blades are more cost-efficient, smaller and consume less power than traditional box-based servers.

^[3] Source: See This Chip? Fortune, February 3, 2003.

^[4] Scalability: Measure of how easily a system can be configured (By adding or subtracting processors and memory etc) to make it more or less powerful to supply the required processing power.

© Icfai Press. Global CEO • December 2003 ,  All Rights Reserved.

Copyright © 2008 ICMR Case Studies in Business, Management.
All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | FAQ