|
Tech Update Hardware Upgrades
|
David Berlind's Reality Check
Opteron support in Intel hybrid could shock HP
Today, Intel CEO Craig Barrett is expected to take center stage at the Intel Developer Forum (IDF) and go public for the first time with news of an Intel-built hybrid processor that, like AMD's Opteron, natively and simultaneously supports 64-bit processing at the same time it supports x86-based 32-bit processing. The processor, which was formerly developed under the codename Yamhill, is rumored to now be officially known as CT, and the enabling technology that makes the hybrid technology work is apparently code-named Clackamas.
 |
But the burning question on everyone's mind will have to do with what flavor of 64-bit technology the new Intel offering will support. Will it support the 64-bit technology known as IA-64 that's behind the company's Itanium 2 family of chips? Or, will it be 100 percent compatible with the hybrid technology found in AMD's Opteron (let's call that AMD64)? Or will it somehow be compatible with both?
Logic would tell you that if Intel has any hope of moving its customers to IA-64, then its hybrid technology would have to bridge the gap to its own chip, instead of AMD64. But, according to a report by News.com's Michael Kanellos, that may not be the case. Intel's CT may indeed be a AMD64-compatible hybrid--a move that could align the software community around a single code base rather than two competing code bases. Such alignment would make life significantly easier for vendors and users alike since it would reduce the number software SKUs to support and from which to choose.
If the Intel new hybrid ends up supporting AMD64 and forgoing support for IA-64, it will be a bitter pill for Intel to swallow. With two such hybrids in the market and the software community aligned behind them, compelling users to somehow jump tracks to IA-64 down the line will be an uphill battle for Intel. Unless Intel came up with some incredible TCO benchmarks, it would be far more natural for users (with the software community behind them) to move forward with AMD64 than it would to consider IA-64.
So, why on earth would Intel even consider such a move? As Kanellos' investigative report reveals, due to legal settlements dating back to 1995, Intel has free, unbridled access to AMD's patents for Opteron and Athlon. Intel's choices are simple. It could burn significant R&D resources reinventing an IA-64-based version that competes with the Opteron and go head-to-head against AMD, complete with the attending confusion in the marketplace. Or, at little cost, it can just take the intellectual property from AMD that it's already entitled to and use its superior fabrication capacity to take AMD out for a spanking in the volume woodshed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which of these appears to be the path of least resistance.
Here's where the story takes an even more perverse twist. If Intel is indeed considering the production of a chip that, for buyers, will draw into question the true viability and the need for its other 64-bit technology (IA-64), then what of Hewlett-Packard? Now we know what's keeping HP CEO Carly Fiorina up at night.
Recall that HP was basically Intel's partner in building IA-64. Its entire long-term strategy is built around using IA-64 as a unifying technology that the entire company and its various proprietary medium-to-big iron operating systems (NonStop, HP-UX, and OpenVMS) are getting behind. If Intel gets behind AMD64 to the detriment of IA-64, market support for IA-64 will collapse or go into an even slower mode, and the rug will be pulled out from under HP, which will be left in virtually the same position it had before with PA-RISC--primarily a single-vendor boutique chip offering that locks customers in. Not very attractive.
Enough speculation. If Intel does end up supporting AMD64 in its rumored hybrid, it will have to pull a rabbit out of its hat to preserve strategic interest in IA-64 in the near term. A rabbit that lays golden eggs.
You can write to me at david.berlind@cnet.com. If you're looking for my commentaries on other IT topics, check the archives.
|
