http://www.fabtech.org/content/view/1702/2/

8)

Core2Duo workstation blazes ahead
By Désiré Athow: Monday 31 July 2006, 13:51
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx (lol)

Right, with Intel on the 65 nm process I hardly see how they are going to suffer more than AMD. Look at the history, who can weather price wars better? It is certainly not AMD. This price war is going to drive them into the red for the rest of the year, a color that their bottom line is very familiar with.

Haha.

Is there ANYONE who can convince you guys of the different cost sructure for the two companies. AMD can make a lot less and still break even. Intel can't. Yes they have more money but they also have more bills.

Most analysts predict growing AMD market share especially in servers. As the new low cost low power chips become mroe abundant, P4 will lose more sales and Core 2 still has to ramp.

OEMs and retailers have n fear of placing AMD boxes in the "front of the store." They have sold well and will continue. By cancelling 95 chips AMD has saved themselves probably hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also by Q1 07 Ati income will be in AMDs pocket while it's more than likely that nVidia will charge nice fat licensing fees for SLI. Since it iwll e awhile before a lot of SLI/Crossfire boards are even available much less low priced, AMD will have made more sales through SIMPLE PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION.

I would hate to have to sell Intel right now. How do you market the various chips?

Apparently Intel currently would have to do $8 billion dollars less revenue per year to break even...
How much more money would AMD have to MAKE in order to break even?!?

MMkay. I guess it's a good thing we don't employ people such as yourself.

Ya, I guess if this is hurting Intel, you guys would love the pain to continue. You sadomasochist you

Peace

I don't think this article takes into account that when Intel releases Clovertown it will probably fire-sale its existing lines. AMD will have to counter with reductions. Just like in the desktop market.

Is there ANYONE who can convince you guys of the different cost sructure for the two companies. AMD can make a lot less and still break even. Intel can't. Yes they have more money but they also have more bills.

Most analysts predict growing AMD market share especially in servers. As the new low cost low power chips become mroe abundant, P4 will lose more sales and Core 2 still has to ramp.

OEMs and retailers have n fear of placing AMD boxes in the "front of the store." They have sold well and will continue. By cancelling 95 chips AMD has saved themselves probably hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also by Q1 07 Ati income will be in AMDs pocket while it's more than likely that nVidia will charge nice fat licensing fees for SLI. Since it iwll e awhile before a lot of SLI/Crossfire boards are even available much less low priced, AMD will have made more sales through SIMPLE PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION.

I would hate to have to sell Intel right now. How do you market the various chips?

Is there anyone that can convince you that AMD may see some hard times soon, like they have MANY times in the past? Intel's revenue last quarter probably went down as low as it will go for the foreseeable future. Conroe is inexpensive to make while being priced, on average, quite a bit higher than Pentium Ds, so it will definitely help their bottom line considerably.

Why would AMD continue to gain shares in the server space with an inferior and hotter running chip? 4-way servers are not all that common.

You would hate to have to sell Intel? Why is that exactly? They have the fastest performing chip on the market, while running cooler and using less energy. Pentium Ds will continue to sell on price. Is that a hard concept? Your beloved AMD is doing the same thing with X2s since it is no longer the performance leader.

Hard to make money when you're selling a second rate chip, that can't be debated it's a fact that Core2duo out preforms AM2 and 64's. I know I've bought my last AMD, six new conroe's coming next year. Hard not to worry about sales when you've put out and barrowed One Billion more than your net worth. he he he he he, how long will it be before Intel dumps money into AMD like MS did Apple Just to keep a token competitor.

Hmmm.. I guess you can say AMD has Intel just where they
want them.

If so, why did they have to buy ATI in order to compete
with Intel? You don't do risky things, when you are in control.

http://www.fabtech.org/content/view/1702/2/

8)

More junk I see coming from you. When will you give it up. You know if it wasn't for the fact Intel is still ranked number 1 of the 15 I might have belived you--not! AMD does not want to enter a price war especially now. However, if a price war ever does come, well---you have my sympathies! You know some people get mad at you 9 but I just feel sorry for people like you. You are so funny at times. Enjoy!

First off this is NOT MY STORY. I didn't write it, I just agree. Even when a IC firm says AMD is in better shape you still don't believe it. That seems like you are deluded.

I guess it depends on if we're talkign about operatng income or net profits. Net profits I believe is $880,000,000 for AMD.

You are a complete and totally worthless bastard. All you do is post random AMD rules bull and never defend your post. I am sorry if your mighty AMD has been beaten, live with it. If not just stop posting, its easy just stop typing this crap.

More bills? You mean to power the fabs and stuff? Okay, I'll give you that intel has more fabs and employees, but AMD just recently added, what, somewhere along 5.4B (ATI merger) + 4 or 5B (NY Fab) to their tab. Not to mention the fab upkeep at Dresden, and the conversion, as well. Looks like AMDs bills are the same as intel's, or even more. Can they still break even?

13 weeks Ending 2006-07-02
Intel: / AMD:
Revenue = 8,009.00. / 1,216.37
Operating costs = 6,937.00. / 1,114.26
Operationg revenue = 1,072.00. / 102.11
Income before taxes = 1,253.00. / 114.33
Income after taxes = 885.00. / 96.03
Net income = 885.0 / 88.85

Yeah, intel's hurting to pay those bills.

Core 2 already is ramping, at a nice pace, too. The only thing that isn't ramping quickly is Kentsfield and Cloverton, since chipsets are being produced at certain fabs to meet demand. But, that's not saying Quads aren't being made and sampled. Also, if Kentsfield can run on existing i975x chipsets, that makes it alot easier to not push a new chipset line. With Core 2 for servers (Woodcrest) that ramped along with Conroe, so I have no idea where you're getting it "needs to ramp" idea.

Uh, okay. Not sure what the whole store front thing was about, but AMD cancelling 95 chips without a newer substitute for 939, other than AM2, was a bit surprising. I figured they'd lose the single core, but push more dual core CPUs, until 65nm transition was complete. I don't know how much they actually saved, but millions of dollars might be a tad much. Maybe 2 million, but not 10 million. Which is gone, either way to pay off loan for merger.

ATIs sales might dwindle without intel support, since it did generate 80% of ATIs sales. Now, if AMD/ATI have a plan in place or in the works before the merger, it might help them (AMD), but with nVidia working with intel for SLI, and if nVidia does raise it's licensing fees to AMD, that leaves AMD with ATI only. I still don't see where simple product differentiation comes from, all I see is a bill from TMSC and UMC for ATIs chips being added to AMDs bill, until a fab is built to create both GPUs and CPUs.

How do you market the various chips? Easy:

Want the fastest CPU around, and price is not an issue? X6800 is for you.
Want something fast, but not too expensive? X6700 is for you.
Want something that has a great price/performance value? X6600 is for you.
Want to create a mid-level budget system without breaking the bank? X6400 is for you.
Want a nice low/mid-budget system? X6300 is for you.

That's not that hard to do.
What is AMD doing to push their products, other than slashing them to the point where profit might not be generated at all. Is slashing the price on the 939s a real deal, when the next upgrade for AM2 means new CPU and memory? Sure, you can keep that 939 a little longer, but when you upgrade, you're buying the same memory type as the C2D, but the system you get might not be as fast/powerful as the C2D. Oh, but you can drop a few grand on 4X4, but we might discontinue that once AM3 arrives, in 2007, sometime.

Please...you've said you're against intel, for whatever reason, but don't try to make them as the ones in the red, or losing wads of cash. They have more than 2 fabs running, they don't rely on foundries for some of their products, they didn't drop almost 10B on mergers/fabs in one year, and I seriously doubt they have problems paying their bills (which by the way, most of the cost of water would be lowered, since they reclaim water in fabs).

Financials Quarterly (Jul '06) Annual (2005) Income Statement
(in millions of USD)
Total Revenue 1,216.37 5,847.58
Gross Profit 690.31 2,391.76
Operating Income 102.11 231.66
Net Income 88.85 165.48

Source: http://finance.google.com/finance?q=amd&hl=en

When? I think you're thinking about GROSS profits, and not either operation profits or net profits.

Source: http://finance.google.com/finance? [...] ii&cid=327

Second rate chip? Are you crazy? A second rate chip will not get you 179 fps.

Ask 965EE.

Basically you guys seem to live off of Intel's success. Do you think I care that much about AMD? You're in denial. Every analyst says the same thing and you still don't listen. Does Paul O have to tell you?

If Intel hadn't made a lawsuit necesary AMD would already be at 30% worldwide.

did you really giggle like a little girl in there? Does that imply unbiased replies? NOT!

I hate that Intel backed themselves into this corner with Itanium and HeatBurst, but I can only call em like I see em. If the 965 takes too long it will really dent in Intel's Q3.

I mean no one wants HeatBurst now and AM2 fits right in between them perfectly. So OEMs can order millions of chips nobody wants or millions f chips nobody can get.

Or they can pick up AM2 with $50 mobos.


Sounds like a tough choice. HMMMMMM! Let me see. I think I'd go with AM2 right now as a system builder. Let someone else decide between Core 2 and PD.


I kinda understand how "alone" you feel but it was Intel's fault just like MS' problems with partners and lawsuits was theirs.

Even nVidia made the statement "you have to have friends in this business." Intel has very few. That's why AMD made the statement, "We will not be another Intel."


Partners will absorb some of the price war costs from AMD, but Intel doesn't really have that luxury.

Also, while AMD was canelling chips to streamline their product lines, Intel is adding new chips to further make differentiation difficult for OEMs and consumers.