Thursday, July 13, 2006

FACEIntel got a boost today

FACE Intel had a field day today, adding 1000 experienced managers. Intel was also a winner, saving 1000x license fees on Powerpoint and MS Project. Intel needs to sell 10 top end Woodcrest CPUs to feed one manager for one month, there aren't enough chips or demand out there.

AMD and Intel are in a life and death struggle. Intel is slashing its own throat to hurt AMD. AMD is rapidly expanding capacity. If AMD manages to sell its capacity at any price, Intel will suffer massive losses and BK in a few quarters. Assuming both AMD and Intel sell CPUs at $1 each (giving them away), AMD can last one year and Intel can last one quarter. The average cost of an AMD CPU is $40, the average cost of an Intel one is about $70. If I were Hector Ruiz, the decision would be simple: cranking up capacity as fast as possible and sell at any price: deny Intel the oppurtunity to unload Netburst inventory at any cost, also do the decisive battle before Intel successfully laying off 50% of its workforce.

Suppose AMD successfully grabs 35% of the PC market, leaving Intel at 65%. Suppose both AMD and Intel sell at $50 ASP for CPUs. World's quarterly CPU consumption is 50 million. This will lead to AMD having $0.9 billion quarterly revenue. Let's assume Intel's ASP for chipsets is $25 and Intel has 100% of the Intel chipset market. Intel's quarterly revenue will be ($50+$25) * 50mil * 0.65 = $2.4 billion. At these revenue levels, AMD is close to break even and Intel will suffer $4 billion loss per quarter. As a result, Intel will BK in less than two quarters. Intel has run out of cash.

The choice for Hector is clear. It's to AMD's ultimate advantage to fight the price war at all costs. Remember it was Intel who started this war, but now it's AMD's job to end it.

I saw that Athlon 64 3000+ was being sold at $65. I suggest AMD sell Athlon 64 x2 3800+ at $135. AMD should also sell Turion X2s at around $100 to disrupt Intel's mobile profit engine. If Intel reacts by cutting price further, I suggest AMD sell X2 3800+ at $75. What da heck. It's war, you are either quicker or dead.

58 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32991

Yes, and AMD cut 1000 jobs as well. Maybe it's a mutual agreement between Intel and AMD to cut jobs. See who runs out first.

3:09 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"See who runs out first."

Thats funny...

Just a few weeks ago you were saying that Intel chips cost about $140 to make, now were down to $70. You really work those numbers to satisfy whatever point your trying to make.

Its getting pretty bad, for you and AMD... see you in the next few quarters and its gonna be Dr.S loves Intel and AMD is evil... I know that wont happen but please be a little less biassed (sp?).

Keep on blogging.

3:27 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Just a few weeks ago you were saying that Intel chips cost about $140 to make, now were down to $70.

The previous number included R&D and SG&A, here, I assume Intel enters a pure pumping mode, laying off 90% of its workforce and developers. Only have FAB workers pumping chips. The cost is $70 for Intel in this scenario.

3:34 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If I were Hector Ruiz, the decision would be simple: cranking up capacity as fast as possible and sell at any price: deny Intel the oppurtunity to unload Netburst inventory at any cost, also do the decisive battle before Intel successfully laying off 50% of its workforce."

Sounds foolproof, but there's two slight, niggling problems

1. Pricing strategies such as that are illegal in nearly every country. Using such a strategy to put a major competitor out of business will land you in the deepest doo-doo, whether your name's AMD, Intel or anything else.

2. Even if it does work and the DoJ doesn't bother to do anything, what then? What motivation is AMD going to have to carry on creating super innovative processors at low, low prices when the only competition comes from Via's wimpy offerings? Hell, AMD hasn't gone very far since the introduction of dual-core chips a year ago, and this is just with a horribly uncompetetive Intel rather than no Intel at all!

3:39 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Jeach! said...

From what can be read and compared about those articles (1000 employees layoffs) is that:

Intel is trimming management which will probably save them $100 to $200 million per year with a restructuring cost of some $30 to $70 million now.

AMD on the other hand seems to be trimming mostly employees which will save them what? $50 million to $60 million per year tops with a restructuring charge of $10 to 25 million now.

a) Management is paid much, much more!
b) Management almost always receives hefty (10%-50%) bonuses.
c) Management has laptops, employees have (cheap) desktops.
d) Etc.

My point is this is probably more symbolic for AMD than it is necessary for Intel.

But as Sharikou keeps repeating, AMD should pull on the rope Intel has tied around its neck.

Dr. Ruiz, if your reading... attack! Attack!! ATTACK!!!

3:55 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel is doing the humane thing; 1000 managers won’t fall on their swords. Layoffs are the only way. Intel fanboys have another option, suicide.

4:03 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

But as Sharikou keeps repeating, AMD should pull on the rope Intel has tied around its neck.

I think AMD cutting jobs is just a preparation for the final war. Even after cutting 15,000 workers, Intel will still have 85,000 workers. AMD has only 10,000.

Now, AMD is doubling capacity to produce 40% of the chips. Leacing Intel at 60%. Let's say AMD only manages to get 35%, Intel gets 65% unit share. Both AMD and Intel sell at ASP of $50. This will mean AMD's quaterly revenue will be $0.9 billion and Intel quarterly revenue at $1.6 billion, plus $1 billion chipset revenue (also cut) At this revenue level, Intel will BK in 1.5 quarters, while AMD can break even.

4:05 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a bit strange to not mention anything about the 1000 AMD employees being laid off in the article. I mean, you know the Intel fanboys are going to stress this in every post of theirs, so I think you should include this news in your article.

As it stands right now, the article is clearly too much anti-intel, and gives those who say you are an AMD fanboy validity in their claims. It is indeed biased.

There's too much assuming going on in the article about ASP as well as future actions on both camps (Intel, AMD) for it to be genuinely meaningful.

I do like a lot of the stuff you post on your blog, though the quality is decreasing rapidly.

This observation has nothing to do with Intel fanboyism, as I'm actually more inclined to AMD, although I guess I'm most drawn to whatever looks favorable for my pocket without giving in too much performance.

4:23 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

It's a bit strange to not mention anything about the 1000 AMD employees being laid off in the article.

Where is the AMD announcement? INQ said AMD is going to cut 1000, mostly Geode people. I bet there are less than 50 people working on Geode.

4:29 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there are only 50 people working on Geode, then where are those other 950 people that were "rumored" to get laid off?

-----------------------------------
The INQ article states:

RUMOURS REACH us that AMD is going to cut about 1,000 jobs today. The affected are the Geode people, formerly of National Semiconductor, and the Colorado center where they worked may be closed as well.
It is sad to see this happen, and wish them luck on their trip to (Brian) valHalla.

Other rumours suggest Intel may lose 1,000 jobs on Thursday. Neither firm was available for comment at press time.
-----------------------------------

Though, I wouldn't even call this an article, just a collection of vague rumors.

I know Intel has confirmed as mentioned in a later article, and that is probably the reason you only mention Intel in your blog article, however not even mentioning the rumours for AMD's layoffs still seems biased to me.

Even if it turns out that the people laid off for AMD are way less, you could still mention that there are rumours about it in your article, from the INQ you like to reference so often. It's so closely related to your article that it's not right not to mention it.

Then again it's your blog, so what does it matter what others think heh, you post whatever you want of course, though I think it hurts your credibility, and confirms your one-sidedness.

4:43 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a thought: Intel pays (I believe) about $2Bil/year out in dividends. If they stopped this dividend might that help if the financial situation really got as bad as you claim it will. Just so I understand you claim Intel will lose $16Bil/year with only 65% of the market? What is ASP today? Your analysis is based on $50 which is lower than the lowest (or near lowest) price of ANY CPU that either Intel or AMD sells.

What would an extra $2Bil in cash each year do your bankruptcy calculation? With a realistic ASP?

I'm also wondering if all of the extra capacity to generate the 0.9Bil of revenue costs AMD anything ?
1. Is Chartered giving them the chips for free? You have to assume even if Chartered has same chip costs as AMD, which is impossible because of your previously mentioned claims of near 100% yield and APM at AMD, they have to be making some profit on what they sell to AMD - how much does that add to AMD's average chip cost?
2. Does F36 equipment and the yet to be built NY fab depreciate at all? Does the construction cost anything? Your current chip cost estimates are based largely on equipment (F30) that has been fullly depreciated.
3. Are there no additional employess require for AMD to build,distribute and sell 2X their current capacity?

5:51 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the chip discount situation is far more interesting than some small layoff at Intel.

Namely, the only chips getting any discounts from AMD or Intel are old obsolete chips.

Any good AMD or Intel chip is not cheap.

If you want a dual core Opteron, anything past the 265 is quite expensive.

And same goes for Intel, althoug Intel is a little less money than AMD.

A real price war would blow out Opteron 265 chips for $150 each and Opteron 285 chips for $300.

A real price war would price the 8XX series Opterons at the same price as the 2-series, so $150 for 865s and $300 for 885s.

These are all old DDR Opterons anyway. Blow them out!

Unfortunately, what we really have is "blow out your old unwanted inventory in a way that will prevent the other guy from blowing out his old unwanted inventory".

It's not that interesting unless you are a big IT buyer in a 3rd world country and want to load up on last year's chips.

AMD will never offer a dual-core Opteron 2XX or 8XX at a reasonable blow-out price.

Unless Intel goes first in the alleged "price war" at reduces Woodcrest 3Ghz to $250. Now that would be interesting.

5:57 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know this is going to end up badly, but I would really like to know what you think is going to happen if Intel goes bankrupt?

I am not talking about AMD filling the worlds demand for processors, just Intel, what will happen, do they sell all their fabs, mortgage all of them, take out huge loans, this is along the lines in which I ask.

Thanks.

6:15 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Outstanding! Your predictions for Intel's imminent demise keep getting shorter and shorter.

This just in - Intel to be "BK" (as you're so fond of saying) in 3 days!

Seriously, you do realize we can come back here next year and refer to these ridiculous posts of yours which were proven to be completely sillym right?

You seem to think all this laughable crap you spew will be gone from the records in a few weeks or something.

7:49 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger mork said...

"AMD can last one year and Intel can last one quarter."

Are you serious man? Where the hell did you learn economics? Then again I understand that you are an american and you havnt really been able to fix you trade deficit for like 30 years, or even balance your budget the last 5 years, so we dont real expect much.

Intel has enough liquid funds to substain loses for several years dufus. AMD in comparision do not. So tell me dumbass, who teh hell was you teacher in economics, where can i find him so i can kill him for not being able to teach you anything.

And I agree with allmost every one. Why do you post rumours about only one company and not the other.
*caugh fanboy caugh*

/MOrK

7:52 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my god. Check this out. This is the best day of all time - this just got released like 5 minutes ago.

INTEL IS RUMORED TO BE DISCUSSING BANKRUPCY!!!

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34017

7:54 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haha. Just kidding douchebag. You probably believed that and went and looked at the webpage.

I love your idiotic predictions of Intel's doom, they crack me up. You are truly not a smart person.

7:55 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

My point is, AMD must match Intel's pricing at every step. AMD must take market share at all costs. Even if AMD had to sell X2 3800+s at $75, do it. Really, AMD doesn't have a choice. It's Intel's war, it can only end by finishing off Intel. So I suggest AMD to take the initiative to perform preemptive price cuts in some markets, instead of merely reacting to Intel. One thing AMD should be doing is cut TurionX2 prices massively.

Why do we need Intel? AMD64 with Torrenza and other stuff is the future.

As for the rumor of an AMD layoff, I don't actually believe it. I doubt AMD can squeeze out 1000 people in a single move. AMD didn't do such large scale layoff even at harder times before.

7:56 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I know this is going to end up badly, but I would really like to know what you think is going to happen if Intel goes bankrupt?"

Are you serious? This is ridiculous, I didn't think anyone was silly enough to believe this crap.

Here's another gem
"As it stands right now, the article is clearly too much anti-intel, and gives those who say you are an AMD fanboy validity in their claims. It is indeed biased."

Umm, this is like saying that because stuff falls towards the Earth it's giving too much credence to those idiots who believe in gravity.

He isn't even just an AMD fanboy, he's got a pathological hatred of Intel. He is literally incabable of rational thought.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this whole page is some kind of social experiment to see if people actually believe that someone could be so utterly insane.

7:59 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Intel has enough liquid funds to substain loses for several years dufus.


Try prove it.

7:59 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I know this is going to end up badly, but I would really like to know what you think is going to happen if Intel goes bankrupt?"

When I asked this question it was meant to point out that without Intel there will be no innovation, no drive to improve.

What I was really hoping for was some more ammo against the Dr..

I do not believe that Intel would go bankrupt.

8:30 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

He is literally incabable of rational thought.


Last year, I proposed one way for Intel to survive: (a) cut production and raise prices (b)establish uniform pricing. The logic was very simple, AMD was ramping capacity and there was no way to stop it. No matter how Intel cuts prices, AMD can respond by cutting even more to grow its market share with AMD64 CPUs.

Obvious?

Intel retards chose the opposite, it increased production and slashed prices. It had to establish uniform pricing. But the inventory glut is irreversible. The result is an all out death struggle.

One thing Intel doesn't understand is even if Intel sells its CPUs at $10 each, it won't be able to clear its inventory, because the CPU itself without a PC is useless, the PC will still cost quite a bit. So slashing CPU price won't cause huge increase of demand....

CORE2 is irrelevant. AMD only needs to surpress the majority of Intel's sales, the P4.

Right now, there is no way for Intel to walk out 2006 unscathed. Laying off 1000 managers is just the beginning. What you will see is massive loss of stock holder equity from impairment of goodwill and write off assets.

Expect 7 quarters losses from Intel.

8:35 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was looking on another website when this little bit of information came screaming into my head...

You dont like Dell, example 1 and example 2.

"Dell's low quality and bad service, AMD's brand will be in serious danger of being damaged by DELL." and "DELL is a screw driver company because most of its work is done by screw drivers.
"

Those are your words, yet you tout the deal as if its a stake in Intels heart, biassed much?

Another quote..."Over 59% of INTEL's revenue comes from Asia (including Japan)."

It would seem that Intel will be OK.

You had said in one of your prior post that Dell was going to AMD because (drumroll please) Intel was lowering their prices, so much so that Dell didn't stand to make as much profit.

Whats gonna happen on July 28th(?), seems that AMD is gonna be in quite a bit of trouble. They probably thought it would be ok, and so did you, but where are they going to get all that money they need for the new FAB in New York.

I am gonna have to predict AMD taking big loans in, say, the third quarter of next year, and you might as well forget AMD expanding any time soon.

9:05 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Jeach! said...

"[...] I would really like to know what you think is going to happen if Intel goes bankrupt?"

"[...] what will happen [...]"

Depending on the severity of such possible BK, my personal take on this is that there is too much for the U.S. government to loose if it were to happen.

I think the U.S. government would step in and help them out (similar to what they did with Chrysler back in the days).

For those of you who have not read the case study for Chrysler's 1979 restructure its an amazing (one of the best) case study!

Here is a short version of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Iacocca

This is pretty much what I think would happen to Intel... although Paul Otellini is far from being as competant as Lee was.

This is a recommended read:

Iacocca: An Autobiography

9:50 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Jeach! said...

"Seriously, you do realize we can come back here next year and refer to these ridiculous posts of yours which were proven to be completely sillym right?"

You can come back in about a year a point the finger all you want... but before you do that, just remember one thing...

Things change! DELL was on the wrong path and predictions were made. But now DELL has decided to change its path... the outcome will now be different.

9:55 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

You dont like Dell, example 1 and example 2.


Things change. DELL needs AMD more than AMD needs DELL. AMD can help DELL to improve and progress into the bright future of AMD64 computing. Whoever stuck with Intel will be dragged down. Today's DELL is learning the hard lesson, and I expect Michael Dell to make quick changes. He is not stupid. DELL is 100% Intel so far, and is crashing. No growth, bad products. What can DELL do to have growth?

12:56 AM, July 14, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I am gonna have to predict AMD taking big loans in, say, the third quarter of next year, and you might as well forget AMD expanding any time soon.


You are incapable of logical thinking. Learn not to jump to conclusions.

1:00 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

amd is preparing another hard hit for intel. amd is plotting a takeover of software giant microsoft, as reliable sources of inquirer have reported.

Here is the proof!

4:28 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How would you fair with MacBook cooked egg or Core Duo egg?

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/07/13/cook-breakfast-with-your-macbook/

4:43 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, response this does not have much to do with your post - but anyway, please have a look at the following article

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxMSwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

5:54 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Sharikou, what do you think of all the dozens (probably hundreds) of Core 2 reviews that have hit the web now?

Every single one of them has nothing but praise for the Core 2.

Almost all reviews show that the $300 E6600 is a better performer than the FX-62. The FX-62 cannot beat Conroes half its price even with the best memory available, except in heavily memory synthetic benchmarks.

All of them paid pumpers???

Does Intel own every single site except your blog?

6:14 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Im busting your whole comment with just 1 point:
Your calculations (which are total BS btw) have shown that AMD cut outlast Intel financially (*lol*), but it all has 1 tiny catch: NO ONE WILL BE BUYING AMDs MEDIOCHRE PROCESSORS!

7:20 AM, July 14, 2006  
Blogger netrama said...

After reading all those (past NDA) benchmarks of CONROE ..my own conclusion is that it is at the most 15% faster than the FX62...but all the websites out there seem to be involved in a conspiracy to highlight the CONROE being much faster to the FX.
However I do not remember such a hype and drama when the FX come out ..it was nearly 100% better (perf/power) than the Intel offerings. I am left with the feeling that I am seeing their huge marketing machine at work.

(Also some Tom's etc have an overclocked the CORE2 EE to 3.4GHz and are comparig this to a non overclocked FX2 - more BS I think)

7:30 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are incapable of logical thinking. Learn not to jump to conclusions."

Contrary to your beliefs, it looks like Conroe is an absolute slam dunk posterization of the entire AMD consumer lineup.

Many benchmarks were run by many people. And Conroe wins them. Every single one of them.

Thus for the consumer/gamer space, Intel is now back on top.

AMD's high prices will be the end of them. I know many people who have put off upgrades because an AMD CPU upgrade costs as much as an entire computer. AMD is going to start feeling the pain of AM2/Socket F very soon... as the lack of upgrades to the existing infrastructure will not sit will with customers.

7:30 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Sharky-

I think you should create a predictions scorecard to be displayed prominently on your main page.

There are some predictions you've made which can be considered realized, others not so much, and still others not.

7:47 AM, July 14, 2006  
Blogger C2 said...

How do you think, is it possible this strange "core 2" campaign to be some kind of "playing the market"???

8:07 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Dr. Dr.

"INTEL got a bost"

Any comment on the benchmarks for the Conroe?

Any comments on the power/watt claims

Oh.. and the price stackup and the implications for AMD revenue and profits with the required agressive drops AMD will now need to do to match performance/dollar.

Dr. Dr. Please redo your financials assuming AMD must keep price/ performance-watt.

Please show us your math... I await your solution?

8:08 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous TechnologyCoordinator said...

"Intel will suffer massive losses and BK in a few quarters"

LMAO! Face it blindless AMD faithful:

Core 2 Duo from Intel is going to challange AMD to stay away from bankruptcy. Look at TomsHardware review of it. The $300 Conroe spanks the FX-62.

8:21 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just a thought: Intel pays (I believe) about $2Bil/year out in dividends. If they stopped this dividend might that help if the financial situation really got as bad as you claim it will."

If Intel stopped giving out dividends, their stock would crash like the Titanic and they REALLY would not be able to recover. I would love to see it happen for so many reasons, but I don't really want a single chip company providing innovation, even if that company is AMD.

8:28 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are incapable of logical thinking. Learn not to jump to conclusions."

Just goes to show you that its not logical when someone else does it, but if you do it then it makes perfect sense, so long as its supporting AMD.

When will you learn, AMD has a better architecture, yes, but they have clearly lost this round, cache or not Intel is beating up on AMD, and unless everyone is a paid pumper, the benchmarks are out there.

Also you made this statement here...

"The previous number included R&D and SG&A, here, I assume Intel enters a pure pumping mode, laying off 90% of its workforce and developers."

This is in reference to why Intel cost $70 per chip. Did you not include those factors into AMD, do they not have R&D?

8:40 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Ooooohhhh Snap!!! AMD's top-o-the-line CPU getting fragged bigtime here here and
here


Ouch! My only question is "How is Sharifraud going to spin this one?"

9:09 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i'm not taking side or anything here, but it's good to see the doc is posting all these rants from intel fanboys. watch as the doc will later laugh at all these comments. so far, i've been glued to reviews and personnal reviews of the x6800. i have to say conroe is not what i expect it to be. another thing, anyone seeing the price on the egg for this extreme cpu, close to $1500 total. i'd like to see a comparison between a conroe and an am2 rig in prices. afterall i'm a price/performance conscious consumer. seems like the early birds are having a hard time ocing and running into toaster like temperatures with conroe lol.

9:20 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my goodness. Every review that I have read shows C2D midrange/budget processors trouncing the A64 and Fx62. What's happening? Why are there so many paid pumpers out there?

Sharikou. You are the only beacon of truth out there. Please post your own benchmarks to cut the internet bullshit. Geez. I had no idea Intel could do so much bad campaigning.

And a previous poster was right. There wasn't this much fanfare when the FXs trounced the P4s. Oh no. Why is the internet a huge marketing machine for Intel as the previous poster stated? Please do something.

9:23 AM, July 14, 2006  
Blogger DBA said...

"After reading all those (past NDA) benchmarks of CONROE ..my own conclusion is that it is at the most 15% faster than the FX62...but all the websites out there seem to be involved in a conspiracy to highlight the CONROE being much faster to the FX."

Base on those reports on the web, I agree that is a fair statement. In this price war, only the customers are the winner.

Regarding to those speculations, please look at the facts.

Intel is selling business units, and cutting 1,000 managers, and rumour 9,000 more is coming. It is a plain sight that Intel is not in a strong financial position. Before Intel converts its entire chip to Core 2, it is still struggling (until 1Q07).

Financially, AMD is still sound at this moment. However, the revenue will be substantially decreased in the imminent price war. Look at its stock price; it has dropped 50% already in 6 months time.

The price war is going to be pretty tough to both Intel and AMD. Intel still has a lot NetBurst old inventory to sell. AMD is ramping up manufacturing capacity. The market will be flood with cheap CPU in Desktop, Laptop and 1-2P servers. AMD stills has it tiny high-end Operton in 4-8P sever sector intact. Intel could has supply limited Core 2 (Assume the chip is that good).

I do not see either of them can afford the price war for long.

My prediction: the price war will last long. Nash equilibrium will be reached by November.

9:23 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Intel stopped giving out dividends, their stock would crash like the Titanic and they REALLY would not be able to recover.

nope, wrong stock market concept. it won't, as the share market doesn't depends on the divident as the single factor (it is not bank). And futhermore, intel used to give $0.02 per share per quarter, not as much as the current one. If the $ is a big concern, they can choose $0.02, instead of $0.10

9:45 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn, not often you see the Doc being quiet for so long, he must be off reading all the bogus Conroe reviews out there. ;)

9:47 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Core 2 Duo from Intel is going to challange AMD to stay away from bankruptcy. Look at TomsHardware review of it. The $300 Conroe spanks the FX-62.

You using TomsHardware as a reliable source? Intel fanboys are getting dumber by the minute.

I personally am a huge AMD fanboy, and I have full confidence in Intel's Core Duo chip, I think it will be a great chip, but at the same time, AMD will come back with an answer, they have had the performance crown for 3 years, and Intel is finally going to take it back in a couple of weeks. AMD hasn't been sitting on their hands like Intel has grown so accustomed to, AMD will have an answer, and this one will take more than a little innovation and a ton of extra cache to surpass.

AMD will be fine in this price war, they DO make chips cheaper, always have, Intel can afford to not get great yeilds, AMD has always had to get the most out of their dollar, and this is the biggest reason AMD will ultimately win. They can innovate as the underdog, they always have, Conroe doesn't change this. They can charge less for a chip that compares with Intel's chip. Remember, AMD isn't dropping prices to compete with Conroe, that comes later, their price drops are competing with P4 technology that they will stomp in every aspect of performance for you dollar.

Intel fanboys enjoy your day, they are getting fewer and farther between.

10:18 AM, July 14, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

I think they are bitter that their precious Core 2 Duo is not in stock. Poor buggers. Maybe if you wait 3 months you're get one. Nah....

10:39 AM, July 14, 2006  
Blogger TheKhalif said...

Though we disgaree about Intel and Ch11, I do know that hey wil be bleeding money until next year at least. The CC for Q2 is upcomign and we'll see. intel doesn' give advice during the quarter so it's anyone's guess, though with the slowing of the PC market and anticipation of Core 2, sales were pprobably wrse for Intel than AMD.

I think Turion X2 should be lowered in price, but not FX or high end X2. At least not as much. 5000+ is WORTH $500. If they drop ti lower, Intel won't have a chance in price/perf. peopel are confusing the CPU with the system. Sure Core 2 wins at lower resolutions but my LCD will NEVER see 1024 or 800 so screw that.

One site had the nerve to run a 7900GX2 at 1024x768.

Without 1600, those tests are bs. Even at 1280 with a 7900GTX, the difference has decreased so Core 2's real prowess is burning DVDs.

I like DVDs but why would I put them on My HD when my TV is a lot bigger than my monitor.

Intel fanboys, beware.

12:21 PM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Tritosh said...

Just one thing guys, have you noticed the speed diferences?
while anadtech and tomshardware shows a huge 20% or 25% boost over the overcvlocked FX

most reviewer sites now show a 15% BOOST(or less) of the CORE vs a NON OVERCLOCKED FX 62.
in short words.. OVERINFLATED..

one thing I found funny on some websites is..
they claim FX-62 is SLOWER ON 64 BIT TESTS than in their 32 bits test.. ( wtf did they smoked?? )
and the CORE is just 5% average faster in 64 bit...

1:16 PM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Wirmish said...

For gamerz only !!!

~~~

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/Intel_Core_2_Duo_Core_2_Extreme/RealWorld_03.png

See the point ?

~~~

Battlefield 2 :
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1152811842qVgGxu7hDY_7_2.gif

World of Warcraft :
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1152811842qVgGxu7hDY_4_2.gif

Half-Life 2 ~ Episode 1 :
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1152811842qVgGxu7hDY_5_2.gif

Elder Scrolls IV ~ Oblivion :
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1152811842qVgGxu7hDY_3_3.gif

Need for Speed Most Wanted :
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1152811842qVgGxu7hDY_8_3.gif

Ghost Recon ~ Advanced Warfighter :
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1152811842qVgGxu7hDY_6_2.gif

Theses graphs speak for themselves...

~~~

Some overclocking here!!!

Quake 4, 1280x1024, medium quality :

Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66 GHz : 124.45 FPS.
Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800 OC @ 3.52 GHz : 125.34 FPS.

Link : http://hardware.gotfrag.com/files/upload/shoes_conroe_q42oc.jpg

~~~

This is very funny.
Look at the C2D E6700 vs C2D X6800 in theses 3 benchs:

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/Intel_Core_2_Duo_Core_2_Extreme/RealWorld_01.png

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/Intel_Core_2_Duo_Core_2_Extreme/RealWorld_02.png

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/Intel_Core_2_Duo_Core_2_Extreme/RealWorld_04.png

See something wrong ???

2:35 PM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i'm running windows xp 64bit and i'm loving, but i see maybe 5-10% of the people owning 64bit cpu use this os. z{PV"to me conroe can be a great [performer in 32bit winxp, b ut it's on par or maybe slower than my 4400 x2. if anyone like i can run sciencemark 64bit edition to show the scores. btw, how come all prominent online vendors pull their conroe x6800 off the web. rumors are flying that intel condemn these site's action to sell thed"} x6800 early. very odd indeed. \

2:38 PM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"This is very funny. Look at the C2D E6700 vs C2D X6800 in theses 3 benchs:
http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/Intel_Core_2_Duo_Core_2_Extreme/RealWorld_01.png
http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/Intel_Core_2_Duo_Core_2_Extreme/RealWorld_02.png
http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/Intel_Core_2_Duo_Core_2_Extreme/RealWorld_04.png
See something wrong ???
"

Well, you know, AnandTech already had a term for it -- it's called "negative scaling"! ;-)

4:23 PM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article presents a rather rosier picture for Intel than Sharikou depicts:

http://overclockers.com/tips00996/

Comments?

8:38 AM, July 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats more like it!

Also, im sick and tired of seeing people comparing TODAY's prices for athlon FX with TOMOROW's prices for core 2 duo.

I mean c'mon? We all be happy to buy X2 3800+ for $160.

Im totaly ok with intel being on top of gaming industry with their super-duper 2.93GHz whatever.... as soon as i am able to fill that 'so far' empty socket in my AM2 board without goin bankrupt.

4:34 PM, July 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nash equilibrium will be reached by November."

I don't think you are using this concept properly. Check Wikipedia.

As both companies have chosen price cuts, if only one increase prices they will not benefit so unless this turns into non-competitive environment neither side gains from raising prices (unless the other side does so at the same time).

7:36 PM, July 15, 2006  
Blogger Steel Smack said...

"Yes, and AMD cut 1000 jobs as well. Maybe it's a mutual agreement between Intel and AMD to cut jobs. See who runs out first."

AMD's cuts weren't so big now were they...

Geode Cuts

180 cut, 75 getting moved to different positions with AMD. so AMD cuts 105, Intel cuts 1000. So who is confident that their chip is the real deal?

7:29 AM, July 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This article presents a rather rosier picture for Intel than Sharikou depicts"

I have to say that article was very informative. I didn't sense any biased points of view, it was just a good read and broke down the price war very well.

Thanks for the link.

9:24 PM, July 18, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home