AMD's price-cutting strategy backfires

[StyM]

source here (http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001579)


Call it the tale of two processor makers: Intel Corp. continues to gain momentum in the microprocessor market, while Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s apparent price-cutting strategy has backfired, according to an analyst.
''AMD is taking prices down to levels the industry has never seen before in the low-end,'' said analyst Doug Freedman of American Technology Research Inc. ''We believe poor product mix and excessive channel inventory are limiting the impact of price cuts. We also believe that recent price cuts have been pushed out as they have proven unsuccessful in clearing the inventory or boosting top-line results.''

The moves have hurt AMD, not Intel. ''Despite an uptick in news chatter surrounding the Intel/AMD price war, we believe ASPs remain pressured by AMD's hell-bent strategy on getting to 30 percent MPU market share (24 percent at present) at any cost and as quickly as possible,'' Freedman said. ''AMD is mostly cutting prices in the low-end, which won't have a terrible impact on Intel in the longer term, but large amounts of channel inventory will undoubtedly have some impact on Intel in the near-term results.''

Rival Intel is seeing other results. ''We believe Intel has regained the high ground, with better high performance products in the mobile, desktop, and server market,'' he said. ''Intel is also aggressively promoting new products with platform wins supporting the new product launches.''

As a result, it's a tale of two quarters for Intel and AMD. ''We believe the quarter is tracking to plan for Intel, while upside is likely limited by aggressive pricing at the low-end of the market,'' Freedman said. ''We believe AMD double stuffed the channel in 4Q06 and January '07, resulting in excess inventory that even aggressive prices are unable to clear.''

In fact, AMD faces a potential cash crisis amid rumors about a private-equity buyout for the microprocesor maker, according to Freedman. . AMD (Sunnyvale, Calif.) needs cash amid a bitter price war with Intel (Santa Clara, Calif.).

Recently, AMD reported fourth quarter 2006 revenue of $1.77 billion, an operating loss of $527 million, and a net loss of $574 million, or minus $1.08 per share. In the previous period, AMD posted a profit of $119 million on sales of $1.328 billion. The company reported a profit of $268 million on sales of $1.351 billion a year ago.

[perkam]

1. It's one analyst's view.
2. Intel will follow with same price structure for low end dual cores in April, AMD just implemented it early on. (Think $85 3600 x2 vs $85 Pentium E2160 coming this April).
3. AMD won't need any more cash, the price cuts are now in Intel's court, not to mention once the X4 comes out, Intel will be behind.

Thats not to say AMD isn't in trouble, but not enough for its long term goals to be affected.

Perkam

[safan80]

nobody wants junk chips. AMD needs to release their new products now and not wait.

[VulgarHandle]

it's amazing how debt due to buying out ATI would cause so many analysts to crap their pants

[nn_step]

umm why is everyone so worried?

[K404]

nobody wants junk chips. AMD needs to release their new products now and not wait.

They`re not junk, and AMD physically cant release their new stuff now. If I could pull 150000 chips out my ass that easily i'd maybe not wait another 5 months?

[perkam]

nobody wants junk chips. AMD needs to release their new products now and not wait.JUNK !?!?!?!??!

There are 10x more netburst-infested products on Newegg than $85 dual core AMD's that ACTUALLY SELL !!!!

Perkam

[vitaminc]

They`re not junk, and AMD physically cant release their new stuff now. If I could pull 150000 chips out my ass that easily i'd maybe not wait another 5 months?

they don't need 150k chips to fill the server space.

amd doesn't care much about desktops, its fab filler anyway. they want to sell more dies into the server space with much higher profits.

[K404]

Meh...maybe true but AMD care about desktop if it`ll make that 30% or more.

EDIT: Do AMD want 30% total, 30% desktop or 30% server market? (unit)

[vitaminc]

3. AMD won't need any more cash, the price cuts are now in Intel's court, not to mention once the X4 comes out, Intel will be behind.

donnno which planet you lived in, but amd is having a cash crunch right now. read amd's first quarter results for details, if you can understand basic accounting. :p

donno why analysts r craping their pants and yelling out price war. intel and amd both do these kinds of scheduled price cuts every year...

[vitaminc]

Meh...maybe true but AMD care about desktop if it`ll make that 30% or more.

EDIT: Do AMD want 30% total, 30% desktop or 30% server market? (unit)

Total. AMD had 30% server DOLLAR market share in 3Q, and lost some back to Intel in 4Q.

AMD have to fill up their fabs to average out the costs, so they are willing to sell desktop chips at way lower prices. Both desktop and server chips are exactly the same dye, with different packaging.

[safan80]

JUNK !?!?!?!??!

There are 10x more netburst-infested products on Newegg than $85 dual core AMD's that ACTUALLY SELL !!!!

Perkam

Why don't you email newegg.com and ask them for figures of the chips they've sold. I think intel is selling more on newegg than AMD is right now.

[cky2k6]

lol, to those who say amd has to stop waiting and release the chips, how many microprocessors have you sold? amd is not intel, intel makes it look easy, while in fact, this is an incredibly challenging feat. amd certainly isnt sitting around with warehouses full of k10s just taunting us... k10 will come when amd can release it, they havent invented magic yet...

[Charloz24]

Why don't you email newegg.com and ask them for figures of the chips they've sold. I think intel is selling more on newegg than AMD is right now.

I agree with Perkam with this. How do you exactly describe a JUNK product??? An X2 processor isn't junk. X2 were the king of the hill 12 months ago, they do not become junk just because a better product emerge.

[safan80]

lol, to those who say amd has to stop waiting and release the chips, how many microprocessors have you sold? amd is not intel, intel makes it look easy, while in fact, this is an incredibly challenging feat. amd certainly isnt sitting around with warehouses full of k10s just taunting us... k10 will come when amd can release it, they havent invented magic yet...

AMD made a bad move in the short run by buying ATI. I doubt they'd have so much trouble if they were still just doing microprocessors.


I agree with Perkam with this. How do you exactly describe a JUNK product??? An X2 processor isn't junk. X2 were the king of the hill 12 months ago, they do not become junk just because a better product emerge.

Compared to Conroe they are junk. Conroe is faster and uses less power, so why would anyone want an X2 now? I have an AM2 setup as well as a S939 and if I compare them to my 2.0Ghz Conroe laptop they just aren't impressive.

[|3ourne]

Compared to Conroe they are junk. Conroe is faster and uses less power, so why would anyone want an X2 now? I have an AM2 setup as well as a S939 and if I compare them to my 2.0Ghz Conroe laptop they just aren't impressive.



Wait ..... am I missing something here ??? I thought AMD was still the king of power consumption war ??? Can you support your statement ? ( not trying to start a flame war , just curious )



EDIT: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=9 here is something interesting .

[safan80]

Wait ..... am I missing something here ??? I thought AMD was still the king of power consumption war ??? Can you support your statement ? ( not trying to start a flame war , just curious )



EDIT: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=9 here is something interesting .

I had a chart that I got from somewhere but I can't find the place where I got it. if your willing to settle for a wiki link on the Conroe stuff. you can compare to the current AM2 x2 stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_microarchitecture

[DoubleZero]

We believe ASPs remain pressured by AMD's hell-bent strategy on getting to 30 percent MPU market share (24 percent at present) at any cost and as quickly as possible,'

Does this guy understand that every cpu AMD sells is one less CPU that Intel sells?

He needs to go look to this chart:
http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20070316PR203.html
This is reality, not some retarded analyst spewing crap...
Yes AMD was hurt not Intel :stick:

I will laugh so hard if AMD gains market share again... it will be like 9 full months with AMD gaining market while analysts say AMD will lose market share.

[arisythila]

I agree with Perkam with this. How do you exactly describe a JUNK product??? An X2 processor isn't junk. X2 were the king of the hill 12 months ago, they do not become junk just because a better product emerge.

Yeah, and more than a handful of people are selling their conroe's and going back to AMD.....

Weird.

~Mike

[arisythila]

AMD made a bad move in the short run by buying ATI. I doubt they'd have so much trouble if they were still just doing microprocessors.

Yeah, Just think about all those chips AMD is selling, for Cell phone, Xbox's, Is Nintendo still using ATI... My god...

Trust me, ATI is MAKING AMD money...

~Mike

[ColdWinter]

Hmm all of us running systems with A64s and A64 X2s really should just toss them out the window. Nevermind that I can do everything I want to do on the system which includes surfing the net, gaming, sending emails, dling, playing music, watching movies, writing up dissertations and most of them at the same time. It is "junk" after all:rolleyes:

[rvd]

Guys, I like cake, this is not news worthy.

[perkam]

Why don't you email newegg.com and ask them for figures of the chips they've sold. I think intel is selling more on newegg than AMD is right now.Heh, a tad contradictory there...you're pissed with there being junk on Newegg and yet you are confident that Intel sells more junk than AMD.

I'm satisfied without the call :)

Perkam

[perkam]

Tip of the iceberg. The next 2 quarters are going to be UGLY for AMD's bottom line.

Even if they can only hard launch K10 a few weeks early, they should get it out ASAP just for the good press.


On the flip side, more talk like this is going to make their stock an even MORE attractive buy.Well its more of an attractive Hold stock than an attractive buy. But ofcourse if it hits $17-$18 by June when the new ATI products come out, right now might be a good time to buy.

Problem is by the time AMD's new product line up is in full swing, Intel will be ready to debut yorkfield.

Though I have no doubt the 6 month gap between Barcelona and Yorkfield will put a serious (~5%) dent in intel's server market share.

Perkam

[nn_step]

Well its more of an attractive Hold stock than an attractive buy. But ofcourse if it hits $17-$18 by June when the new ATI products come out, right now might be a good time to buy.

Problem is by the time AMD's new product line up is in full swing, Intel will be ready to debut yorkfield.

Though I have no doubt the 6 month gap between Barcelona and Yorkfield will put a serious (~5%) dent in intel's server market share.

Perkam

honestly in the next week or two the price will probably start to rise a little bit, might as well get in before it starts climbing too fast

[thunderstruck!]

3. AMD won't need any more cash, the price cuts are now in Intel's court, not to mention once the X4 comes out, Intel will be behind.

And you know this how? I am not disputing it, but it's pure speculation.

[fhpchris]

3. AMD won't need any more cash, the price cuts are now in Intel's court, not to mention once the X4 comes out, Intel will be behind.

Thats not to say AMD isn't in trouble, but not enough for its long term goals to be affected.

Perkam

45nm core 2 duo will make sure intel isnt behind :)


JUNK !?!?!?!??!

There are 10x more netburst-infested products on Newegg than $85 dual core AMD's that ACTUALLY SELL !!!!

Perkam

Some of those 70$ 631s are not as slow as you might want to think :)

[cky2k6]

AMD made a bad move in the short run by buying ATI. I doubt they'd have so much trouble if they were still just doing microprocessors.

they would be in the same situation without ati... ati has no relevance to their issues with 65nm... if amd got their process out on time, we would probably have seen k10 by now. thing is, amd isnt intel and has to live in the real world, and theres nothing they can do about the issues theyve had. i am sure that amd will release k10 the first chance they get, how did the image that amd isnt working their ass off to get the product out emerge? they pretty much push their fabs beyond their physical capabilities...

[Fuji]

1. It's one analyst's view.
2. Intel will follow with same price structure for low end dual cores in April, AMD just implemented it early on. (Think $85 3600 x2 vs $85 Pentium E2160 coming this April).
3. AMD won't need any more cash, the price cuts are now in Intel's court, not to mention once the X4 comes out, Intel will be behind.

Thats not to say AMD isn't in trouble, but not enough for its long term goals to be affected.

Perkam

The die size of the Intel E2160 will be a lot smaller then the X2. Say we say that the 90nm X2 is still the bulk of shipment. It's die size is 183 mm^2. A 4 MB L2 cached Conroe is 143 mm^2, and a 2 MB L2 cached Conroe is 111 mm². That should put the E2160's die size at around 95 mm² which is far smaller then the X2.

And i'm starting to agree on point 4, but what Intel loses in efficiency, it will make up with a faster bus and more cache and higher clock speeds.

[perkam]

Some of those 70$ 631s are not as slow as you might want to think :)I know :p I was eyeing one for myself actually, though with the E2100s around the corner, and the X2 3600+ standing there smiling at you while you click "Add to Cart" on the 631, its just not worth it :p

Perkam

[Big Whiskey]

These "AMD is in Trouble" treads are getting quite tiresome.
One moment AMD is in trouble because they can't supply channel suppliers
because of the growth of OEM side
next moment they have inventory glut

AMD missed one quarters ananlysts "expectation" of 1.7 billion sales. They only did 1.6 billion
They have too be in trouble. Right

But AMD's '05 revnues was 3.9 billion dollars
'06's revnues was 7.5 billion dollars, a rise 91%. They must be in really trouble

meanwhile Intel's revue for '05 was 35 billion.
'06's revnues was 31 billion a loss 11% and cut 10,500 jobs, no problems there.

the only reason AMD had to cut prices because Intel had a massive inventory of P4's which nobody wanted and they needed to dump
if you knew any about chips you wanted or recommended an Athlon64 or a Core2Duo

Intel big on fast single treading stuff, suck at multi-threading

AMD going big on multi-treading stuff, suck at single threading

It all depends on what you want

me I'm for multi-treading that's why I like DAAMIT rigs

for some reason some people think last fall Intel decided on a Monday morning the they develope chips too compete against the AMD's Athlons and Opertrons, so by Friday they released the Core2 Duo and that AMD was caught by the short and curlys when it came out.[triumphent voice] Haha take that AMD[/triumphent voice]

in realitly it took 3 years of development for C2D to surpass AMD's chips

then a lot of people were looking for the answer to the Question "What's going to be AMD's Conroe Killer"
anybody paying attention to AMD's past record knew the answer, "There never was going to be "A Conroe Killer""

Single tasking desktops (and desktops themselves) has started it's death throws, AMD has already realized that and has moved on from that type of performance.

slowly the signs that a home will needed it's own server are showing up(music and video especially) and this is where AMD will be ahead

Is AMD dead or dying?
NO

Until they chapter 11 I'll stick with AMD, Intel would have to impress the hell out of me before I buy one again.

[Shintai]

And for revenues, now ATI count in....

[gallag]

It’s a well known fact that on the day Conroe was launched, performance stopped mattering.

Or maybe I am wrong but I don’t remember to many amd guys saying “sure my x2 is faster but your p-d does everything you need, right?”
All I remember was statements like “why would you recommend an Intel when the x2 is faster?” Which was true, x2’s were faster and used less power so what was not to like


Yet now if someone calls an x2 slow (which it is compared to core 2 duo) it goes down as well as drawing a picture of the prophet Mohamed
Let’s get back to XTREMEsystems and away from adequatesystems

Arisythila, you say that there is “more than a handful of people are selling their conroe's and going back to AMD.....”
Yet by your own admit ion your new x2 system cost more and is slower so why would you do it? And can you post evidence of this mass exodus from Intel?

[Jamesrt2004]

These "AMD is in Trouble" treads are getting quite tiresome.
One moment AMD is in trouble because they can't supply channel suppliers
because of the growth of OEM side
next moment they have inventory glut

AMD missed one quarters ananlysts "expectation" of 1.7 billion sales. They only did 1.6 billion
They have too be in trouble. Right

But AMD's '05 revnues was 3.9 billion dollars
'06's revnues was 7.5 billion dollars, a rise 91%. They must be in really trouble

meanwhile Intel's revue for '05 was 35 billion.
'06's revnues was 31 billion a loss 11% and cut 10,500 jobs, no problems there.

the only reason AMD had to cut prices because Intel had a massive inventory of P4's which nobody wanted and they needed to dump
if you knew any about chips you wanted or recommended an Athlon64 or a Core2Duo

Intel big on fast single treading stuff, suck at multi-threading

AMD going big on multi-treading stuff, suck at single threading

It all depends on what you want

me I'm for multi-treading that's why I like DAAMIT rigs

for some reason some people think last fall Intel decided on a Monday morning the they develope chips too compete against the AMD's Athlons and Opertrons, so by Friday they released the Core2 Duo and that AMD was caught by the short and curlys when it came out.[triumphent voice] Haha take that AMD[/triumphent voice]

in realitly it took 3 years of development for C2D to surpass AMD's chips

then a lot of people were looking for the answer to the Question "What's going to be AMD's Conroe Killer"
anybody paying attention to AMD's past record knew the answer, "There never was going to be "A Conroe Killer""

Single tasking desktops (and desktops themselves) has started it's death throws, AMD has already realized that and has moved on from that type of performance.

slowly the signs that a home will needed it's own server are showing up(music and video especially) and this is where AMD will be ahead

Is AMD dead or dying?
NO

Until they chapter 11 I'll stick with AMD, Intel would have to impress the hell out of me before I buy one again.

QFT

[G.Foyle]

What makes a company is customers, and customers decide if AMD is in trouble or not. If I say "AMD please show me Barcelona benches and other numbers" and they do not show, I say "AMD sorry you didn't show me Barcelona numbers, now I'm not sure if I want your CPU", and that means AMD is in trouble cause it's just almost lost a customer to Intel.
Maybe that's just me, but I think in enthusiast market more poeple think the same.

[Shintai]

But AMD's '05 revnues was 3.9 billion dollars
'06's revnues was 7.5 billion dollars, a rise 91%. They must be in really trouble

meanwhile Intel's revue for '05 was 35 billion.
'06's revnues was 31 billion a loss 11% and cut 10,500 jobs, no problems there.



Can you please do a tiny bit of research if you post numbers?

AMDs 91% revenue is affected by the first time they count ATI revenues.


Advanced Micro Devices moved into the top 10 in 2006. Consistent with Gartner’s longstanding practice, Gartner has included full year 2006 revenue for ATI in the results presented here. Combining AMD’s and ATI’s results for 2005, the combined entity grew semiconductor revenue by 32.1%.


Also Intel sold off some businesses, thats why they lost some of their revenue.

It would be like saying AMD was a huge failure when it sold of spansion. Since their revenue dropped like 50%

[nn_step]

:nono:

Fact check:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01121/

It's not about REVENUES, it's about PROFITS. AMD LOST money for the whole year last year (166mil) vs Intel's net PROFIT of 5 BILLION.

And the 1.6-1.7 revenue number for Q1 07 is what AMD's INITIAL estimate was. They have NOT told us by HOW MUCH they will miss that. Hector said that it will be a "substantial" miss, but he declined to give a number.

well you have to spend money to make money. Updating Fabs, R&D costs, and Etc add up. Also take into account market share, simply selling 1 million processors @ $5 Profit makes more money than selling 1 thousand Processors @ $100 Profit

[nn_step]

Of course. But in this business you also have to have a competitive product to make money. We saw from the K7 years that being second best and stuck in the "value" segment meant that AMD basically made zilch. That is what they face now. Without a higher performing part they are stuck selling at lower ASPs.

That will ALL CHANGE when K10 comes around. But until then, their stock is going to get creamed.

actually I fully expect that AMD to take some serious hits right now, but they do it solely for market share, which will benefit them extremely when they take the lead again. Minor costs now will benefit supremely later

[situman]

These "AMD is in Trouble" treads are getting quite tiresome.
One moment AMD is in trouble because they can't supply channel suppliers
because of the growth of OEM side
next moment they have inventory glut

AMD missed one quarters ananlysts "expectation" of 1.7 billion sales. They only did 1.6 billion
They have too be in trouble. Right

But AMD's '05 revnues was 3.9 billion dollars
'06's revnues was 7.5 billion dollars, a rise 91%. They must be in really trouble

meanwhile Intel's revue for '05 was 35 billion.
'06's revnues was 31 billion a loss 11% and cut 10,500 jobs, no problems there.

the only reason AMD had to cut prices because Intel had a massive inventory of P4's which nobody wanted and they needed to dump
if you knew any about chips you wanted or recommended an Athlon64 or a Core2Duo

Intel big on fast single treading stuff, suck at multi-threading

AMD going big on multi-treading stuff, suck at single threading

It all depends on what you want

me I'm for multi-treading that's why I like DAAMIT rigs

for some reason some people think last fall Intel decided on a Monday morning the they develope chips too compete against the AMD's Athlons and Opertrons, so by Friday they released the Core2 Duo and that AMD was caught by the short and curlys when it came out.[triumphent voice] Haha take that AMD[/triumphent voice]

in realitly it took 3 years of development for C2D to surpass AMD's chips

then a lot of people were looking for the answer to the Question "What's going to be AMD's Conroe Killer"
anybody paying attention to AMD's past record knew the answer, "There never was going to be "A Conroe Killer""

Single tasking desktops (and desktops themselves) has started it's death throws, AMD has already realized that and has moved on from that type of performance.

slowly the signs that a home will needed it's own server are showing up(music and video especially) and this is where AMD will be ahead

Is AMD dead or dying?
NO

Until they chapter 11 I'll stick with AMD, Intel would have to impress the hell out of me before I buy one again.

while its great that AMD's REVENUE went up, its margins went down. It doesnt matter if you have 50% market share or 10 billion in REVENUE. If you lose money on every chip you make, you will not make any money at all. What really matters is MARGIN and NET Income.

AMD buying ATI was a bad move even right now. They couldn't afford and used up their credit line and whatever cash they had. Its like a guy that lives paycheck by paycheck and barely gets by. He goes and blows half of his paycheck for a down payment on a car. Now he has no money for like food. What exactly have they done with ATI every since the acquisition? Haven't seen any kind of synergy between them yet. ATI is more a cash drain on AMD right now.

I for one hope AMD will issue more stocks and prices drop like mad so I can load up on some. AMD may be in trouble, but I doubt the government will let it go out of business since that would make Intel a 100% monopoly.

[arisythila]

45nm core 2 duo will make sure intel isnt behind :)



Some of those 70$ 631s are not as slow as you might want to think :)


Size sometimes doesn't mean anything..... The Pentium D(dual cores?) @ 65nm were not faster than A64 X2's It was the technology. If I remember correctly people needed to clock Pent D's to almost 2x what AMD's were clocked to get a good result.

I maybe wrong.

~Mike

[arisythila]

Nice write up.... Also Welcome to the Forums. One problem tho, you misspelled AMD/ATI. Just thought I'd tell you.

~Mike


These "AMD is in Trouble" treads are getting quite tiresome.
One moment AMD is in trouble because they can't supply channel suppliers
because of the growth of OEM side
next moment they have inventory glut

AMD missed one quarters ananlysts "expectation" of 1.7 billion sales. They only did 1.6 billion
They have too be in trouble. Right

But AMD's '05 revnues was 3.9 billion dollars
'06's revnues was 7.5 billion dollars, a rise 91%. They must be in really trouble

meanwhile Intel's revue for '05 was 35 billion.
'06's revnues was 31 billion a loss 11% and cut 10,500 jobs, no problems there.

the only reason AMD had to cut prices because Intel had a massive inventory of P4's which nobody wanted and they needed to dump
if you knew any about chips you wanted or recommended an Athlon64 or a Core2Duo

Intel big on fast single treading stuff, suck at multi-threading

AMD going big on multi-treading stuff, suck at single threading

It all depends on what you want

me I'm for multi-treading that's why I like DAAMIT rigs

for some reason some people think last fall Intel decided on a Monday morning the they develope chips too compete against the AMD's Athlons and Opertrons, so by Friday they released the Core2 Duo and that AMD was caught by the short and curlys when it came out.[triumphent voice] Haha take that AMD[/triumphent voice]

in realitly it took 3 years of development for C2D to surpass AMD's chips

then a lot of people were looking for the answer to the Question "What's going to be AMD's Conroe Killer"
anybody paying attention to AMD's past record knew the answer, "There never was going to be "A Conroe Killer""

Single tasking desktops (and desktops themselves) has started it's death throws, AMD has already realized that and has moved on from that type of performance.

slowly the signs that a home will needed it's own server are showing up(music and video especially) and this is where AMD will be ahead

Is AMD dead or dying?
NO

Until they chapter 11 I'll stick with AMD, Intel would have to impress the hell out of me before I buy one again.

[arisythila]

:nono:

Fact check:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01121/

It's not about REVENUES, it's about PROFITS. AMD LOST money for the whole year last year (166mil) vs Intel's net PROFIT of 5 BILLION.

And the 1.6-1.7 revenue number for Q1 07 is what AMD's INITIAL estimate was. They have NOT told us by HOW MUCH they will miss that. Hector said that it will be a "substantial" miss, but he declined to give a number.

Gawd Daym!!! Thats the PERFECT Reason to buy Intel, They are all driving Stretched Limos Lamborghini' while we are all driving Lincoln town cars.

Alittle OT: One thing that i've always said. Especiallly getting bigs for people building my deck in the back, and doing my kitchen counter tops. For the deck, one company wanted 16000 dollars, another company wanted 26000 dollars, First company wanted 100 dollars an hour, other wanted 200 dollars an hour.. Job would take 2 weeks, and they are packed full of jobs. Materials were 6000 dollars roughly for both companies, I just cannot imagine paying people 200(dollars) x 10(hours) = 2000 dollars a DAY to build my porch. My wife only brings home ~400 dollars a day, and she works 12 hours a day. I won't support someones life style that is WAY better than mine. Contractor guy came over in a 2007 Corvette...

Back to the point you made Brent, I'd rather support the company that looses profit, than gains.. Another reason I shop at smaller groccery stores, and buy my home speaker systems at mom and pop shops. and not at Walmart.

~Mike

[Entity_Razer]

umm why is everyone so worried?

my thoughts exactly....

AMD has a bad quarter and all of a sudden

ITS PANDEMONIA !!!!! AAAARGGHHHH THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR !!!

I SEE DEAD PEOPLE !!!!!

...

seriusly guys this whole thing is getting pretty:
a) annoying
b) overhyped.

To conclude:

AMD is NOT going bankrupt right now
they WILL bounce back
No the world is not comming to and end

so lets all take our dose of valium and go back to bed now ok?

[arisythila]

Mike, we all know where you stand on this and your motivations.

I'm just pointing out the COLD, HARD numbers here.

(and believe me, I don't want AMD to go away either)

Oh I know. Just stating how I feel. I guess I'd crap over people if I made that kinda money too..

~Mike

[zakelwe]

AMD would like Intel's profits that is for sure but the market share they have now and also the more equal footing with Intel they have in the buyers eyes should give good dividends if K10 is very good.

I guess Intels move of dumping the rubbish caught AMD on the hop a bit and whereas they should have been tightening belts they were out spending. I hope this does not mean they have to cut back on developing K11, K12 etc etc. :(

Regards

Andy

[DoubleZero]

Can you please do a tiny bit of research if you post numbers?

AMDs 91% revenue is affected by the first time they count ATI revenues.


So why did AMD spent money on ATI? lol :stick: They can't have ATI revenues?

I guess buying ATI isn't relevant when we look at the 166 millions of debt, but are extremely relevant when we look at the 91% increase of revenue...

[Shintai]

So why did AMD spent money on ATI? lol :stick: They can't have ATI revenues?

I guess buying ATI isn't relevant when we look at the 166 millions of debt, but are extremely relevant when we look at the 91% increase of revenue...

No, but he wrote it as AMD got a 91% increase due to super duper performance.. And 166million debt? I think you missed a few billions. ($7.3billion)

[John600rr]

Back to the point you made Brent, I'd rather support the company that looses profit, than gains.. Another reason I shop at smaller groccery stores, and buy my home speaker systems at mom and pop shops. and not at Walmart.

~Mike

That honestly cracks me up. Maybe somebody can run some comparison's for Performance vs Average Pay Wage at each company.

Average pay at AMD = $50k a year, but only 80% performance of Intel's offering. But the average pay at intel is $75 a year. +25% wage / performance ratio AMD wins by 5%! Let me sell all my Intel stuff right away!

On the other hand, I drive a Vette too. :D

[DoubleZero]

I think you missed a few billions. ($7.3billion)

$7.3billion dept only in 2006?, i thinks that's what we are talking about, 2006.
And Intel got $11 billion of dept, what's your point?

[safan80]

Heh, a tad contradictory there...you're pissed with there being junk on Newegg and yet you are confident that Intel sells more junk than AMD.

I'm satisfied without the call :)

Perkam

it's not contradictory. You stating your opinon without fact and I'm stating mine. Let me be clear as to what I'm saying since your only seeing my comment the way you want to. Intel is probably selling more chip on newegg than AMD. I'm talking every type of chip not just the junk chips. unlike you I'd actually like to know who is right by seeing the facts, because it would show where AMD is in all of this, if AMD can't hold it together we are all screwed.


they would be in the same situation without ati... ati has no relevance to their issues with 65nm... if amd got their process out on time, we would probably have seen k10 by now. thing is, amd isnt intel and has to live in the real world, and theres nothing they can do about the issues theyve had. i am sure that amd will release k10 the first chance they get, how did the image that amd isnt working their ass off to get the product out emerge? they pretty much push their fabs beyond their physical capabilities...

So your saying cash flow has no relevance? Well if AMD didn't buy ATI they'd have the money to keep up and not debit. AMD erased all the profits they made from pervious years by buying ATI.


honestly in the next week or two the price will probably start to rise a little bit, might as well get in before it starts climbing too fast

how do you figure? Paper launches don't count for anything. AMD needs to create a reason for people to buy their stock not create reasons for people to sell it. shareholders want to see AMD shipping products for sale if they don't they sell the stock. missing target dates like AMD has with the RD600, quad core, and R600 tells everyone to sell and let the stock do badly until they can show some results.

[Hassan]

They couldn't afford and used up their credit line and whatever cash they had. Its like a guy that lives paycheck by paycheck and barely gets by. He goes and blows half of his paycheck for a down payment on a car. Now he has no money for like food. What exactly have they done with ATI every since the acquisition? Haven't seen any kind of synergy between them yet. ATI is more a cash drain on AMD right now.

Not if the guy doesn't have a way of getting a job, Rule #1 you have to spend money to make money, in this circumstance, allowing AMD to make competitive chipsets/platforms for their products which will allow them to be a real player in the MP arena

[Fuji]

I thought that they were already a real player in the MP market.

I've heard it said that more recently, AMD has to be a lot more creative when it comes to battling Intel. One Intel debuts CSI with Nehalem (it would be nice if all sectors of the market received Nehalem at the same time...all sectors being: Mobile, desktop, sever (UP/DP/MP)) Intel will pretty much be "caught up" marketing wise (i.e AMD can't say that Intel is behind in integrated memory controllers and stuff like that)

[gdogg]

give up the fanboy stuff.

Enthusiasts go where the performance is, period.

If your still using an amd, or waiting 1+ year for a new amd chip, even though you have the money and want to upgrade.

Your an amd fanboy.

I use intel now, before it was amd, and it will be intel next, unless amd beats intel to market with a higher performing chip.

and if 2 weeks later amd comes out with a better solution, i'll go amd, and be happy with 2 machines, 1 tol intel and 1 tol amd.

[gdogg]

Personal attack once again? You will never learn I guess.

FACT - Intel had a superior product, amd innovated and made a better chip

The new intel? Based on a new core? Updating over and over the good old pentium 3 core and laying 10000 jobs off doesn't make a new company.


Here are you facts brent:

Intel and amd both had the upper hand. AMd is a much smaller comapny and still manages to come over intel when it comes to performance, they did it with the K7, with the K8 and will probably do it with the K10. As you may have noticed history tends to repeat itself.

"this is the new intel, it will never allow amd to come on top, it will squeeze amd" blah blah, that kind of talk shows the kind of fanboy you are. I wonder what kind of moderators allow you calling other peoples oppinions pathetic, and calling them names as well. I see you trolling in many threads in the amd forum, "hey why don't you get a conroe, skrew amd", "amd sucks, intel rulz" and so on. What are you trying to proove, I think everyone here knows how doesn current chips perform, but you are still trolling about it.

It is quite clear you have a problem with the size of the thing. But is this the place to make up for it?

your intel fanboy remarks are no better. Just cause your an amd fanboy, doesn't mean you need to force your beliefs on us.

We are just here to read about the new amd processors, and complain about no benches.

Why? Because we are not fan boys, and want to know who we will be going with in q3-q4 2007.

What if amd flops? What then? Will you be like, well its k11 thats gonna do it, trust me.

Either way, I would like to see one company with a huge performance increase over the other in the next gen.

This will lead to low prices, for great processors, just like now.

[zakelwe]

I am getting sick and tired BrentPresely of all your

:slap:
:stick:
:slapass:
:nono:

and if I am getting sick and tired of it then no doubt other people will also.

This is not a combative arena to show other people are wrong just because they do not agree with your viewpoint. This is a part of the forum to discuss new news.

YOU ARE WELL ON THE WAY TO A PERMANENT VACATION, EITHER GET SMART OR WE WILL MAKE YOU VANISH FROM HERE.

Last warning.

Regards

Andy

[savantu]

It’s a well known fact that on the day Conroe was launched, performance stopped mattering.

Or maybe I am wrong but I don’t remember to many amd guys saying “sure my x2 is faster but your p-d does everything you need, right?”
All I remember was statements like “why would you recommend an Intel when the x2 is faster?” Which was true, x2’s were faster and used less power so what was not to like


Yet now if someone calls an x2 slow (which it is compared to core 2 duo) it goes down as well as drawing a picture of the prophet Mohamed
Let’s get back to XTREMEsystems and away from adequatesystems

...

Why do you break away from the flow and bring reason to a house of madness ? ;)

[GMX]

Size sometimes doesn't mean anything..... The Pentium D(dual cores?) @ 65nm were not faster than A64 X2's It was the technology. If I remember correctly people needed to clock Pent D's to almost 2x what AMD's were clocked to get a good result.

I maybe wrong.

~Mike

Yes you are quite wrong
You didn't need a P-D at 4ghz to equal a 2gz AMD... That kind of equilibrium is way out of proportion (typical negligent AMD man, judging from your posts in the past)
A P-D at 4ghz should give about 32sec Super pi 1m.
A64 @ 2.6-2.7 is about the same.
AXP @ 3.3ghz 30 sec.
This should give you a rough idea in other benchmarks perhaps, where you have some spankings on either side and some close ones.


give up the fanboy stuff.

Enthusiasts go where the performance is, period.


The above quote should wipe out all bias thoughts. But amazingly people ignore it... even on a forum called XTREMEsystems.org



Intel and amd both had the upper hand. AMd is a much smaller comapny and still manages to come over intel when it comes to performance, they did it with the K7, with the K8 and will probably do it with the K10. As you may have noticed history tends to repeat itself.


AMD didn't necessarily win with the K7. They won us over with the cheapness of the platform (CPU/boards).
A 2.4C was king back then.. marginally beating K7 in most things, and easily winning in others.



"this is the new intel, it will never allow amd to come on top, it will squeeze amd" blah blah, that kind of talk shows the kind of fanboy you are.


Sure, you can leave out the AMD attack parts. But you cannot deny Intel has a more aggressive strategy than before.




Aside, I don't see any of Brent's posts?

[Halvie]

stated for the 4th time....pls god let k10 work in AM2 boards.

[Cracker]

People love their brands. :p:

I just hope history is a good indicator and AMD/ATI can stick it out again for years on end with no profits before coming out with a better product. Until then I am stuck with yucky Nvidia and Intel shiz... ;)

I am a brand-blind buyer. If Cyrix/SiS/fill-in-the-blank came out with a faster and cheaper cpu I would own it. Or videocard for that matter.

[perkam]

stated for the 4th time....pls god let k10 work in AM2 boards.My feelings exactly...I'd love to pop them in existing AM2 boards without need for AM2+...

Perkam

[arisythila]

That honestly cracks me up. Maybe somebody can run some comparison's for Performance vs Average Pay Wage at each company.

Average pay at AMD = $50k a year, but only 80% performance of Intel's offering. But the average pay at intel is $75 a year. +25% wage / performance ratio AMD wins by 5%! Let me sell all my Intel stuff right away!

On the other hand, I drive a Vette too. :D

75 dollars a year.... thats crap. how do you drive a vette with 75 dollars a year?

Yeah, I drive a 2007 Infiniti FX, 2002 Lexus IS300, and a 1996 Nissan 240SX, Raise of hands on who cares what I drive? Nobody, I thought so.

~Mike

[arisythila]

give up the fanboy stuff.

Enthusiasts go where the performance is, period.

If your still using an amd, or waiting 1+ year for a new amd chip, even though you have the money and want to upgrade.

Your an amd fanboy.

I use intel now, before it was amd, and it will be intel next, unless amd beats intel to market with a higher performing chip.

and if 2 weeks later amd comes out with a better solution, i'll go amd, and be happy with 2 machines, 1 tol intel and 1 tol amd.

Blah blah, and Intel Fanboys go were the Intels are..... You know who the fanboys are because they always defend one another company. People that favor intel more than AMD, defend intel, and Vice Versa.

~Mike

[arisythila]

Yes you are quite wrong
You didn't need a P-D at 4ghz to equal a 2gz AMD... That kind of equilibrium is way out of proportion (typical negligent AMD man, judging from your posts in the past)
A P-D at 4ghz should give about 32sec Super pi 1m.
A64 @ 2.6-2.7 is about the same.
AXP @ 3.3ghz 30 sec.
This should give you a rough idea in other benchmarks perhaps, where you have some spankings on either side and some close ones.

hahahahhhahahaha

:toast: :clap: Okay.

~Mike

[perkam]

gdogg, arisythila YGPM.

Yet another one I couldn't save X(

CLOSED.

Perkam