Printable View
Being conpeditive doesn't sell chips. If that was so then why does AMD sell every chip they make. The problem is they can't make enough is whats holding there profits back. Nothing is even close to 100% yet in AMD. AMD knows how to sell chips. They never lost a thing.
You guys have a stock bottom price much higher than I . I have a target of $7. I believe next week on friday we will see AMD @ $14.> But its alright to be optimistic. But don't forget Intel is cutting pricies in 2nd qt . The -e4300 @ $115 using a cheap M/B will have the low end wrapped up. Let us not gorget the Celarons based merom. Also . So I see AMD hitting below $10 easily.
Thats good reasoning Serge problem is AMD isn't selling every chip their making inventory is building for AMD chips. Look at Dell when they were Intel only they were no 1 . Only after they made a deal with AMD did they slip to no. 2. The last qt. Shows Dell falling fast. So no AMD isn't selling every chip they make. Word is the OEM's are angry because the AMD systems are over priced and building in inventory . Further puttting downward pressure on AMD chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
Over priced? A X2 3800+ is $130. A E6300 is $189 last time I checked. Now whos over priced. Even amd's FX62 is only $525 OEM. I don't see how a flag ship processor could be any less in dual core. Last time my news was upto date was AMD was winning the price war with rediculessly cheap cpus that only 3 or 6 months ago cost from $300 X2 3800+ to $1000 FX62. 50% price falls. All AMD has been is the cheapest solution for similar enough as it is performance in the real world. Conroe we all know is the best but I wouldn't pay what they are asking for for a 15% performance difference if I was somebody looking for a upgrade.
I beleave you over exsurte the situation AMD is in. You act like they are going BK. It takes companies years to be effected not days or months. Intel was 2nd best for 3 years now AMD is 2nd best on performance yet performance isn't everything. Right now AMD is the best bang for your buck right now. Intel wasn't effected much at all. Neather will AMD in its current posission.
Once 65nm reaches higher yelds and matures AMD will be in a better posission to sell more chips again. But currently as far as I know you need to show some proof or thats just BS coming from a Intel fan as far as I know. Dell is one of the best companies on top right now so thats false no proof. And yelds arn't good for AMD at the moment because of the transission to 65nm. They sold most of there chips to Dell is current news and AMD can't make enough chips. Its Intel your getting confused with. Netburst is 90% of Intels storage, should be scrapped to make room for conroe. AMD's warehouses are empty because of dell and AMD can't supply the open market because as soon as it gets out of the factory its inventory is sold.
The problem here serge is the $189 Intel processor will out perform the top of the line $500 AMD processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
When Intel cuts prices in 2nd qt . $115 e4300 with a cheap M/B will ot perform the $500 amd processor.
Your argument is OK serge. Except if we go back in time . P4 were slower and used more power than AMD. Yet Intel fans didn't or shouldn't have argued the performance differance or the effiecncy differance doesn't matter.
Go back and read what happened in any thread that this occured in . The only differance is now the shoe is on the other foot.
By the P4/AMD 64 standards of debate your argument is at best lame. IN every since of the meaning.
http://www.svdaily.com/gartner1.html
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...er_pc_numbers/
http://chip.seekingalpha.com/article/23367
I think bringing the FX62 into the picture is silly. Just forget it exists.
Just as silly is saying E4300/6300/6400s are faster than one.
The fact is, at the current time, stock for stock AMD have 65nm cpu's to compete with C2D up to the 6400, And a range of 90nm CPUs to compete up to the 6700 if you include the 6000+ (arguably).
When you look at the comparible models I personally think they're still overpriced, but not by much. Many people factor in the cheaper 'comparable' MB prices for AM2 as a reason for this not being such a problem.
Given Intel plaster their C2D adverts on nearly every PC related website I go to, One can only hope It wont be long before more people realise Intel p4 era is dead, and AMD will need to bring prices down further and become more of a 'bargin' alternative like it was several yrs ago. Supply and demand! ..
What inventory is building? the inventory of single cores,not the dualcoresQuote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
i pretty much think amd is selling every dualcore it produces
last time i checked the "angry people" didnt get any 4200+/4600+/5000+ etc. they were stuck with slow 3500+ and semprons,but nodobdy wants that
so please stop making up BS
and a share price of 7$ for AMD, NO WAY :)
edit/ i think serge is right here :)
Again I have supplied links . To back up what I was saying. You on the other hand have supplied no links to back up your statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
I have read the forums a long time. Serge use to say things that were correct . Back when AMD64 VS. P4 thats a fact.
Another fact is this. Since C2D has arrived Serge has not been correct about anything. Examples
Serge 4x4 will beat Intel quad core.
Serge AMD 65nm cores will over clock to 3.6+
Sege AMD quad cores for desktop will O/C to 3.6+ easily (not known at this time but I am taking any and all bets.)
So I would like to see Serge correct this time . But so far he is batting zero. All indictations seem to point to him being wrong yet another time.
Guys. Try and keep the personal shots to a minimum. Its irritating when someone comes along to actually try to find out information.
Oh so off topic now :) $7 for AMD stocks doesnt seem likely to me, would create an interesting situation though. When talking about competitive chips lets not forget how loud AMD were about power consumption, i will still hold that against them, and more so because of the 4x4. If AMD is bang for the buck then Pentium D is too? Anyone want to build a P-D system? :D I dont, but i do want K8L benchies, NOW.
*IF* the stock bottoms out at $7, I'll be extremely happy. Time for a large purchase again. :D
sorry,dont have all the time to browse trough my history :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
if i find a link i will post it,but i think its about 2 months ago
This thread has turned into some ego fest again, it's like watching a couple of old men in the park all boasting to one antoher about all the things they have done in the past. No one can be beat by any of the others, let alone by any outsiders in their little circle talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by riptide
Cnet:READ, http://news.com.com/AMD+Go+to+Barcel...tag=html.alertQuote:
AMD: Go to 'Barcelona' over 'Clovertown'
Chipmaker predicts that its quad-core chip will outperform Intel's by 40 percent when it ships later this year.
Quote:
also will outperform AMD's current dual-core Opterons on "floating point" mathematical calculations by a factor of 3.6 at the same clock rate
Barcelona & Penryn together :D
http://www.overclockers.ru/images/ne...01/quad_02.jpghttp://img181.imageshack.us/img181/9879/penryn038sx.jpg
Nice pic MAS, big die tells me this picture is the real thing. :)
Whats the estimated float performance gain per clock of Penryn vs Conroe? Less than 5%? Sure looks like i will go back to AMD this fall... Conroe at max clock still cant run MS FSX well at very high settings, max OC K8 barely runs it at all, so obviously i need a HUGE improvement in floating point, just hope K8L can OC enough to keep up with 45nm Intel.
some additional info concerning Barcelona
http://news.zdnet.com/2102-9584_22-6152645.htmlQuote:
"We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40 percent," Allen said. The quad-core chip also will outperform AMD's current dual-core Opterons on "floating point" mathematical calculations by a factor of 3.6 at the same clock rate, he said.
I had no idea that Serge had ever been right about anything. I suppose I haven't been around here long enough because all I've seen from him is fanboy babble every bit as zealous as the BS spewed by Sharikou the Clown. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
Oops, quad vs dual, then the float performance isnt so impressive, barely enough to match Kentsfield. :( I guess thats what it said at Cnet also, should have read it more carefully, and it was too good to be true anyway :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Btw, link doesnt work for me.
Edit: Ok now.
if it was quad K8 vs dual K8 the factor should have been 2.
3.6 means almost twice as fast clock per clock than K8 in FP apps,
wich was predictable :P
3.6 just means half-K8L = 1.8 x K8 dual :)
1.8x dual for dual , Isn't that a little Larger than expected?
K8L has double the SSE throughoutput of K8.80% sounds about right in practice , that is Linpack.
OTOH , Conroe has a similar advantage over K8 but reality shows that the gains are much smaller.Take AMD's 3.6x as the absolute max in the best possible circumnstances ( Linpack test) , realworld it will probably be a lot less.
Let's not forget that this claim is coming from AMD and most likely represents the very best possible scenerio. Likely a synthetic BM that heavily favors K8L over K8 or another theoretical estimate.
K8L in May
Quote:
AMD ramping Barcelona
Wafers in 'real soon'
By Charlie Demerjian: Wednesday 24 January 2007, 09:02
AMD WASN'T JOKING about Barcelona hitting Q2. I didn't believe it until a solid source came out and said the volume ramp is starting 'really soon'.
If really soon is defined as the end of the month, and you add in the 10-12 weeks it takes from shiny silicon pizzas in to pin laden chunks out, that would mean parts are available at the beginning of May.
It would not surprise me if it is trading yield out for time to market, so let's add a month before they are really available. That puts things at early June for volume, or when AMD said it would have it out. Minor miracles do happen