SGI01: Recently, Silicon Graphics has been aggressively attacking HP's traditional mid-range graphics markets. In July, SGI launched the R4000. Be assured, that HP is not standing and watching. With the launch of the 3D Aggressor promotion and other upcoming announcements, you will see that HP is serious about shutting SGI out of our traditional markets while making progress in penetrating markets where SGI has been strong: AEC and Earth Resources. The purpose of this presentation is to help you see that HP has a better story than SGI, especially when it comes to graphics workstations under $60K. HP offers lower entry prices and higher performance in almost every price space. Please use this presentation to help you assemble your sales strategy and feel free to use slides in your customer presentations where appropriate. SGI02: SGI has filled out it's product portfolio to be successful in their traditional high-end as well as in the mid-range. This slide is a "periodic table" depiction of SGI's current product portfolio excluding multiprocessor systems and high end servers. The left hand column shows CPU characteristics and rows show graphics options and capabilities supported with each respective CPU. SGI03: There is far too much to say about SGI and/or HP on just one slide. HP strengths can be positioned as SGI weak points and vice versa. SGI is currently a 840 M US$ company which grew at about 40% in 1991/1992. Their worldwide market share reached 6.7%. SGI acquired MIPS Computer in 1991, whose losses exceeded the earnings of the new parent, SGI. This places the joint company in a difficult financial situation. Losses as a result of the move were reported at 118 M US$. Under the assumption that SGI will make the same profit for the next years they need 3 years to just recover from this loss. Further, it is reported that SGI will layoff about 500 former MIPS employees. This will also affect SGI's ability to develop their "free public domain" tools like EXPLORER and others in the future. There are two technology white papers available on the hotline that discuss SGI's graphics technology. The first compares SGI's distributed 3D library, GL to the X-Consortium offering, PEX. The second paper discusses the pros and cons of 64-bit technology. SGI04: In this slide we compare entry level systems from SGI and HP; the 710C and 720CRX to the Indigo and the higher performing Indigo XS. The 710C competes very nicely with the Indigo 8bit and customers reportedly mentioned that graphics performance (3D shading) is about equal. If you are in competition with an Indigo XS, you would be better not to discuss performance. In this case it would be more effective to discuss HP as a company, HP's CPU development strategy, futures, support etc. SGI05: In the mid-range SGI has been very aggressive. HP will not be beaten. Through the 3D aggressor program, we competes very nicely with SGI. The 720CRX-24Z is very competitive with the CRIMSON ELAN graphics, especially since we have a comfortable price advantage. The 720-CRX24 compares nicely with the SGI XS subsystem, having the advantage of true color. The higher performance ELAN graphics subsystem is the best comparison. In real tests of application performance, it doesn't likely show more than 68K quads/sec. Also note that a CRX24 performs amazingly well in areas like NURBS thanks to our Powershade rendering library. SGI06: The high-end comparison shows that there is a good chance of beating SGI even if their offering includes a VGX, their high end system. The slide actually shows some published GPC performance numbers. GPC benchmarks are standard programs that emulate application behavior for different markets. This is one of the rare numbers SGI published and it is quiet useful in convincing customers to keep a TVRX in mind. If the VGX or VGXT feature set is important to the customer it is very likely that you will have problems. On the other hand the TVRX supports some features SGI doesn't, like contouring in HW, sectioning/capping and deformation animation. This can be especially of help for MCAD customers. SGI07: Please refer to my white paper GL vs. PEX to get more ammunition should your customer be asking for GL availability on HP or is indicating that GL is a standard API on the graphics markets. HP will be offering GL 4.0 emulation from a third-party software partner. This will help you move SGI customer over to the HP platform with a reduced impact on software investment. This is ideal for those customers who currently have application written on GL 4.0 and who would like to move to PEX. SGI08: Xlib/PEXlib is the solution of choice for distributed graphics. Here we try to show the architecture of PEX/PEXlib compared to X/Xlib. It also shows how very nicely X and PEX fit together. Again, the GL vs PEX white paper explains the details and benefits of PEX/PEXlib. SGI09: This is a list of 3rd party API's available on HP workstations. Of particular interest is HOOPS, a very portable, easy to program and sophisticated object oriented API. As mentioned above, SGI GL 4.0 is available from Nth graphics. HP is currently in negotiation to get a GL 4.0 implementation on top of PEXlib. The current implementation is on top of Starbase. SGI10: High level API's are very often based on low level API's as this slide shows. Different markets have different needs. In the Scientific Visualization market segment GL is very well known. SciVis usually needs no display lists to manage complex hierarchical geometric structures. In the ME application markets, however, hierarchical structures are an extremely important requirement. Therefore, GL doesn't have much influence in this market segment. However, it is possible to base hierarchical and immediate mode APIs on top of PEX. GL (even OpenGL) will limit the customer to immediate mode. SGI11: Read this slide carefully!!! If a customer is currently based on GL 4.0 and wants to move to GL 5.0 he has to rewrite major parts of his application and doesn't even get the full functionality. This is a very strong point for HP and PEX! A customer could port to Starbase or PEXlib instead which would give him more flexibility and the use of a REAL standard. SGI12: Finally this slide gives an overview of the architecture limits of X, GL and PEX. As you can see, PEX provides distributed access to a much higher level of graphics functionality. SGI13: The next four slides provide a glimpse of target markets where HP competes against SGI. It is intended that these slides give you some background for slide SGI17 which provides a competitive positioning matrix. SGI is targeting the ME-CAD market very aggressively. This slide provides background on HP's and SGI's respective positions in this market segment. SGI14: SGI also tries heavily to penetrate the AEC/FM market segment where HP was also traditionally very strong. Read this slide together with slide SGI17. SGI15: In the Earth Resources market segment, SGI has traditionally a larger installed base. HP is currently attempting to increase our presence in this market segment through aggressive market development activity.. With products like the CRX24 and CRX24Z we are very competitive, especially if we consider our compute performance. SGI16: Scientific Visualization is the traditional market segment for SGI. Therefore, its number one position is not due to the fact we can't compete but due to historical reasons. In fact HP is gaining market share in this segment very rapidly. Applications like AVS and others run best on HP. SGI17: This competitive positioning matrix is provided as a tool to help you bid the most optimal system for each target market segment. It also will give you an idea of what is the likely system to be bid by SGI. Please note that this is only a indication that might not be always true. Customers could have special requirements like dual head or additional EISA slots that make these recommendations not suitable for the given market. SGI18: The next few slides examine HP and SGI's CPU technology and and position HP as the most likely to succeed in the future. HP has been a leader in RISC-based CPU architecture having introduced the first commercially viable RISC-based system in 1985. Over the years, HP's experience in RISC CPU design coupled with other advances have positioned HP as the undisputed leader in CPU performance and architecture. This slides shows the current and future development of our PA-RISC technology versus our main competitors. Press reports indicate that SGI will introduce a 67 MHz R4000 processor this year which will bring them into the 100 SPECmark range. Other reports claim that SGI may postpone the development of the R5000 processor or might even consider alternatives that will be available on the market to replace its MIPS processors. SGI19: The R4000 would need to run twice the current speed (200 MHz internal and 100 MHz external) to keep up with the speed of the PA7100 chip. With the current technology available this is very unlikely to happen. A 67 MHz version is probably all they can achieve. SGI20: SGI is frequently highlights the 64-bit technology of the MIPS R4000 processor. This is ironic since SGI's current operating system has does not support 64 bit addressing. In any event, 64-bit addressing provides some advantages and disadvantages. 64-bit physical addressing isn't needed today because a 32b-it physical addressing can already support up to 4 GB RAM which isn't a useful configuration given the current RAM technology available on the market. A white paper is available that speaks in detail about the tradeoffs of 64-bit addressing. SGI21: Virtual addressing can be handled as a flat address space (addresses are starting with the lowest address and are going up to the highest in one address space) or as a segmented address space(segments of 4GB [32bit addressing]) like with the PA-RISC and IBM RS/6000. The advantages and disadvantages of each technology are listed on this slide. SGI22: HP's PA-RISC implementation is 64-bit. In terms of addressing, 64-bit is not needed as you can see on the previous slides. Please refer to the white paper for more detailed information.