Comments on: Intel Reacts To The Competitive Heat On Its Xeons https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/02/24/intel-reacts-to-the-competitive-heat-on-its-xeons/ In-depth coverage of high-end computing at large enterprises, supercomputing centers, hyperscale data centers, and public clouds. Sat, 07 Mar 2020 18:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1 By: Timothy Prickett Morgan https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/02/24/intel-reacts-to-the-competitive-heat-on-its-xeons/#comment-140387 Sat, 07 Mar 2020 18:09:00 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=108353#comment-140387 In reply to Grammar NAZI.

It is actually “its” in your correct. So screw this sentence, basically….

]]> By: Timothy Prickett Morgan https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/02/24/intel-reacts-to-the-competitive-heat-on-its-xeons/#comment-139950 Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:58:01 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=108353#comment-139950 In reply to emerth.

Well said, sir. Btu there is an official price/performance cut in there. Somewhere. They could have just cut price and not confused the crap out of customers.

]]> By: emerth https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/02/24/intel-reacts-to-the-competitive-heat-on-its-xeons/#comment-139925 Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:40:06 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=108353#comment-139925 Intel’s XEON product portfolio looks a lot like “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”. It used to be sufficient to have a semiaccurate Intel decoder ring to choose a XEON model, but now one needs a multi-dimensional least-action hypersurface fitting reduction algorithm.

]]> By: Grammar NAZI https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/02/24/intel-reacts-to-the-competitive-heat-on-its-xeons/#comment-139924 Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:35:47 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=108353#comment-139924 “Intel is trying to be clever and use it sever-broadening SKU stack…” probably should be “Intel is trying to be clever and use it’s ever-broadening SKU stack…”.

]]> By: Timothy Prickett Morgan https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/02/24/intel-reacts-to-the-competitive-heat-on-its-xeons/#comment-139889 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 20:42:30 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=108353#comment-139889 In reply to John Juliano.

You are right. It was badly written. I think it is fixed now.

]]> By: John Juliano https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/02/24/intel-reacts-to-the-competitive-heat-on-its-xeons/#comment-139882 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:45:55 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=108353#comment-139882 A pair of statements in the fourth paragraph seems contradictory to me, or at least needs more explanation if I’m not reading the intent correctly. First, it states that “Since [January], Intel abolished [the premium it was charging on top of its list prices for access to more than 4.5 TB memory per socket], which cost $3,003 per chip”, which implies Intel dropped a charge with those parameters. But then shortly thereafter, it states that “now you have to pay $3,003 additional per socket to have 4.5 TB of memory [same parameters?]… but that is a lot less than the $7,897 Intel was charging before January.” So some number is misprinted in the text, there’s a timing sequence that’s not clear, or there’s a piece of context making it hard to interpret. Could you clarify? Thanks…

]]>