DELL win vastly boosts AMD lawsuit
I have long predicted that Conroe launch time is DELL's AMD time, you can go back to read the numerous articles I wrote on that, including this one. Some idiots always ask the obvious question, why? Why does Dell have to go AMD when Intel releases a faster CPU?
For that, go back read my articles and think.
Conroe is the last straw that pushed DELL to AMD.
You will see Dell AMD desktops next month, and Dell AMD laptops in October.
I expect AMD64 to be 50% of DELL's business by 3Q07. Intel will lose market share and its ASP has crashed. Intel is expected to BK in 1Q08 to 3Q08 time frame. By then, DELL will be near 100% AMD.
Since AMD's average cost for a finished CPU is only $40, well below Intel's cost (about $75), AMD can help DELL maintain profitability and growth by offering some signup bonus.
The DELL win is a major boost for AMD's anti-trust lawsuit against Intel. AMD launched Opteron in 2003, gained little ground in two years. Immediately after the lawsuit, AMD quickly gained market share and acquired customers. This proves that with Intel's illegal activities curtailed, AMD can grow quickly in a freer market. Thus, AMD's failure to grow was not due to its own problems, as Intel claimed, but due to Intel's illegal monopolistic behaviour. This will be crucial in the damage phase of the lawsuit, once Intel is proven guilty.
Consider the alternative. If, after the lawsuit, AMD's market share stayed the same, Intel would have a very strong defense. Intel would say, "See, I stopped doing those tricks AMD complained, but nobody wanted AMD any way, so I was not the cause of AMD's past failure and I am not liable for AMD's past failure. The damage I caused was zero." Now, AMD says, "Jury, look, we sued, Intel stopped its illegal behaviour, now everyone is using us. Let's compute the damages AMD suffered in 2000-2005. "
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 8/17/2006 03:06:00 PM
74 Comments:
Sharikou wrote:
"Conroe is the last straw that pushed DELL to AMD."
Yeah, I agreed. I bet Intel would have tried by all means to stop Dell to defect. After Conroe was Intel's forced show-hand. Thus meant empty promise of supership; Dell was forced to keep market share with AMD stuff or doom.
I also had this thought a while back when Intel had the guerilla bench mark: Is Conroe designed to pass the existing bench-mark?
What if it would suck when it run a generic application? You know, some peeps can take tests with high score but suck at real work..., the over-achievers....
-Longan-
P.S. The lack of Dell announcement on new Dell laptop could only mean one thing. Dell wants to lay low with the current battery recall. That last thing Dell wants to do is to add the AMD Turion gasoline on to the fire of laptop batteries recall.
Dell would be smart to wait for the whole thing to blow over then announce the AMD laptop deal.
I personally think the dual core for laptop is the biggest bull-crap. Thus lead to the battery explosion. Not that Intel chip was the direct cause, just an indirect cause. When you pack so much power into a small package to satisfy Core Duo, you ask for trouble!
hat last thing Dell wants to do is to add the AMD Turion gasoline on to the fire of laptop batteries recall.
No matter how Intel fanbois want to distract, the fact is, Core Duo laptops exploded. Dell will use Turion x2 to restore the image. The message will be: new 64 bit chip, safe and cool.
DellCore Duo laptops exploded.
" Sony has said the overheating problem is believed to be specific to batteries supplied to Dell and that an incompatibility between the battery cells and Dell's recharge system was to blame."
Yes please ramble on about Core's 'heat':D
Apple and Dell are the major pc makers to constantly have problems, Apple even before Intel. So who's fault again?
I wouldn't say Conroe is the last straw for Dell to AMD... in fact far from it. Dell has been hammered by analysts for HP gains because it hasn't offered anything but Intel chips.
Having said that... it is unfortunate that Dell didn't jump to AMD when AMD 'used to have' the performance crown. The announcement would then have had stronger implications. Now, it just comes across as Dell is offering a cheaper (and NOT superior) option for customers.
Will this solve Dell's issues? Hardly. Will this solve AMD's issues? Doubtful. I'll qualify the latter statement by pointing out three factors:
Firstly, AMD doesn't yet have the manufacturing in place to provide copious 'extra' chips to a new OEM, meaning they will have to take either from the channel or other vendors to meet any significant demand which ultimately would leave Intel an open door to take back sales to companies it had previously lost to AMD.
Secondly (and closely tied to the first in terms of surplus capacity), in the short term for AMD the transition to more sales of multi-core processors means that more silicon real estate will be taken up to produce one chip for sale. Wait until you get a load of the size of their new chips due out in the spring. It almost makes me wonder why they don't go the route of Intel by pairing 2 dual core chips to sell as a quad core instead of trying to make four cores on the same silicon.
Thirdly, you know AMD had to discount their chips significantly enough to beat the price subsidies that Dell was enjoying from Intel because you know those just went away. Translation: Already in a price war it can't sustain, AMD takes it on the nose by selling an inferior chip at a reduced rate to get the Dell sale thereby further eroding AMD's average selling price.
As a bonus thought, I'm interested in your take on how all this comes together with AMD's allegations of Intel being a monopoly. When you consider AMD has increased market share and Intel no longer has an exclusive relationship with any Tier One OEM. (Apple obviously not being a Tier One OEM.)
As a bonus thought, I'm interested in your take on how all this comes together with AMD's allegations of Intel being a monopoly.
You don't get it on why Conroe is the last straw. Conroe is the final cause that pushed DELL to AMD.
AMD's market share growth greatly enhances its anti-trust lawsuit against Intel. AMD launched Opteron in 2003, after two years, it gained almost 0 ground. Immediately after AMD sued Intel, AMD's market share took off. This proves that once Intel's illegal behaviour is curtailed, AMD can quickly take the market. Now, turn back the clock, if Intel hadn't employed the dirty tactics in 2000-2003, AMD's market share today should have been close to 50%. Case is proven. Damages should be $12 billion dollars minimum.
Not to dogpile on the spanking you're going to get for blaming Core Duo laptops for the battery issue... just riddle me this:
If the Core Duo was only released in January/February of 2006... why would Dell be recalling 4.1 million that (from Dell's own press release) "Dell sold or provided these batteries with the notebook computers, as part of a service replacement, and as individual units from April 1, 2004, through July 18, 2006."???
Also from that same press release, why would Dell, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulatory agencies worldwide fail to mention Intel as the cause and yet name Sony (the battery supplier) instead?!
Quote:
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulatory agencies worldwide, Dell is today announcing the voluntary recall of approximately 4.1 million Dell-branded lithium-ion batteries with cells manufactured by Sony. Under rare conditions, it is possible for these batteries to overheat, which could cause a risk of fire.
Feel free to peruse the following links:
http://investor.news.com/Engine?Account=cnet&PageName=NEWSREAD&ID=3567973&Ticker=DELL&SOURCE=20060814006094
https://www.dellbatteryprogram.com/
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06231.html
Down with Intel dirty tactics!
Come on, support the good guy, AMD. Without AMD, we will be doom under Intel's boots.
-Longan-
up to 7-9 quarters now? you said 5-7 last quarter, so it sounds to me like you are just blowing hot air.
up to 7-9 quarters now? you said 5-7 last quarter, so it sounds to me like you are just blowing hot air.
No. Go back and check. I said 5-7 quarters in 3Q06.
"Damages should be $12 billion dollars minimum."
XD
--hahah...
Sharikou said on 7/13/2006:
"As a result, Intel will BK in less than two quarters. Intel has run out of cash."
Negative, I don't think you don't get it and are trying to make something more out of Conroe being 'a final straw'. I'd like to offer the counterpoint of Dell's announcement coming after AMD reduced prices. I'm not saying AMD's chips are bad, I'm just saying Dell wasn't in the buying mode when AMD could charge top dollar for them. This makes me wonder if Dell is just a vulture that has swooped in on AMD to get a good price on a chip despite it no longer being the clear performance leader.
AMD's market share growth greatly enhances its anti-trust lawsuit against Intel. AMD launched Opteron in 2003, after two years, it gained almost 0 ground. Immediately after AMD sued Intel, AMD's market share took off.
My reply to your above statement is just this:
Opteron was the FIRST real chip that AMD could produce in quantity that was a superior alternative to anything Intel had to offer. After a long history of not having success with ANY Tier One OEM's you really can't blame Intel for the computer manufactures not wanting to invest heavily in AMD.
It wasn't the lawsuit that enabled Opteron to take off. As a pro-AMD supporter, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking it took legal action and not realizing that it was the design wins Opteron earned while Intel had nothing to offer. It is almost ironic that your anti-Intel stance prevents you from recognizing earned innovation.
And since I've been kind enough to correct this matter for you, I'd like to cordially invite you to continue this new found skill of recognizing earned innovation and have you practice this by giving accolades to Intel for their advances with Conroe to take back the performance crown that AMD 'used to' own.
Sharikou said on 7/13/2006:
"As a result, Intel will BK in less than two quarters. Intel has run out of cash."
Full text with context:
"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."
Remember Intel fanboys said “Dell will never leave Intel”. Next they said” yeh, but it’s only high-end servers’. Now Dell is the wild roses with AMD servers, desktop and notebooks.
Where are all those fanboys that wrote those nauseating uncouth remarks about the prediction?
No. Go back and check. I said 5-7 quarters in 3Q06.
Q3'06 + 5Q = Q1'08?
Q3'06 + 7Q = Q3'08?
you know addition? if not, let me make it simple for you.
5Q = 1Q + 1 Year
Q3'06 + 5Q = Q3'06 + 1Q + 1 Year
= Q4'06 + 1 year
= Q4'07
apply the same concept to the other addition
Sheepshagger, the problem with your point is this: AMD had the Opteron out for nearly two years before they announced the lawsuit. During this time, they only had a smattering of design wins. Nothing major, and no serious volume, even from their best customers. As soon as they announced the lawsuit, the design wins started coming in. Within just a couple of months, they had several major design wins. During the past year, Opteron sales have exploded, then quickly followed by Athlon 64's.
Simply go back and look at the time line. It's pretty obvious. I followed the whole situation quite closely because I couldn't believe OEM's weren't picking up the Opterons and Athlon 64's faster, despite their obvious superiority to the P4's.
Well if Intel isn't nearly dead by Q1 2008 I guess you'd be wrong. Somehow I think you being wrong is a lot more likely than Intel going bankrupt.
And enough about the labtops exploding. It's a battery issue period and the battery issue itself is a volume thing. Dell sells more labtops which is why they appear to be affected more. I bet you that if Dell were to sell 100% AMD labtops they have the same number of incidents. I guess we'll just have to see how soon we'll have an AMD Dell explosion unless Sony fixes their problems or Dell changes suppliers.
Quoting: "Dell reported that it maintained its lead in the global PC market in second quarter, with a 19.3 percent share."
That's not too bad considering all of their shipped chips are Intel.
Their margins are shrinking because of: 1. High RMA or return rate. 2. Lame discount structure 3. Taking a bath in the PDA/mp3 market. 4. Crappy customer service and the high costs associated with.
TD's top ten:
1. Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40G
2. Intel Pentium D 840 3.2GHz /
3. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ / 2MB
4. Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.67G
5. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.40G
6. Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2
7. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ / 2MB
8. Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.67G
9. AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 2.80GHz
10. Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2
I think what Sharikou is trying to tell you, The Sheepshagger, is that after forcing Dell to pick up a lot of excess P4 cpus they went ahead and suddenly released Conroe and hype it up saying it was 40% faster than their counter parts.
Not only that they over hyped it up they also sold all the P4 then at the price to any customer. Dell, being a loyal customer that always support Intel and helped it get rid of their stock had a huge bunch of Intel cpu that they can't sell with their system at the same profit level they used to.
Then Intel again cut the prices down to 50% (or was it more) which makes all the remaining stock that Dell was having a hard time getting rid of because of the uniform pricing at some profitable level became 50% loses.
So to sum it up:
1. Intel earlier this year was trying to shove stock down Dell's throat.
2. When Dell couldn't take anymore, Intel utilises uniform pricing so that everyone got the same discount as Dell.
3. Now Dell has a lot of Intel stock that they have sale at a low profit.
4. Intel hypes up Conroe, invalidating the old P4s. Making all that old stock of Dell's undesirable as people wait anxiously for the new Conroe systems.
5. Intel chops the price in half so they can fit the new Conroe range that price bracket of the old P4. Any stock Dell was holding is at 50% loss.
So what you expect a long time, loyal and faithful client like Dell to do? How many kicks up the brown hole can they take?
TD's top ten:
1. Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40G
2. Intel Pentium D 840 3.2GHz /
3. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ / 2MB
4. Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.67G
5. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.40G
This looks like the top 5 most profitable chips to me, instead of the top 5 most popular.
“accolades to Intel for their advances with Conroe to take back the performance crown that AMD 'used to' own.”
GOOD NEWS
Yep, Conroe is a nice peace and partial congratulations (I mean it), but not at everything and not on every benchmark. I’ve seen benchmarks where the Conroe lays down in the 64-bit mode on real world applications like Windows Media 9 and others. Conroe does mathematics great but falls down on some ScienceMark’s. Overall a deserving performance crown.
BAD NEWS
The rest of the computer universe belongs to AMD for the foreseeable future.
I thought you might be interested to know some SPECint_rate_base2000 scores since you always keep comparing performance using SPEC.
http://www.intel.com/performance/server_mp/xeon/intthru.htm
A 4S/8C 3.4GHz Tulsa 7140M system gets 162.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q3/cpu2000-20060721-06586.html
In comparison the new 4S/8C 2.8GHz Socket F Opteron 8220SE gets 146 in SPECint_rate_base2000. And this is the special "performance optimizied" SE edition too with it's 120W TDP.
"The rest of the computer universe belongs to AMD for the foreseeable future."
Not at the moment. Intel's design wins have earned them superior performance and performance/watt in desktops (Conroe), laptops (Merom) and 2P workstations/servers (Woodcrest). All AMD has at this point are 4P/8P servers.
I can't argue with genius when I read it:
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
Sharikou said on 7/13/2006:
"As a result, Intel will BK in less than two quarters. Intel has run out of cash."
Full text with context:
"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."
5:30 PM, August 17, 2006
I mean seriously... I sure would hope Intel would have 100% of their own chipset market... much the same that I would expect AMD to have 100% of the AMD chipset market (or does no such thing exist!?).
But getting back to another blurp you left us in the above:
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
Sharikou said on 7/13/2006:
"As a result, Intel will BK in less than two quarters. Intel has run out of cash."
Full text with context:
"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."
My question in this statement is why are we assuming anything?! Especially when you told us in the following post 3 days ago that AMD's ASP was $83?!
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/08/athlon-64-x2-3600-for-130.html
I didn't get the update as to what cause AMD's ASP to drop $33 in 3 days like that. Unless... you really have no idea what AMD's ASP is because I can assure you... you're off quite a bit on what you've stated for Intel's ASP. But then again... it was just an assumption, right?
You didn't happen to work for Enron in the accounting department by any chance, did you?
Bruno Dieter Chan said...
"4. Intel hypes up Conroe, invalidating the old P4s. Making all that old stock of Dell's undesirable as people wait anxiously for the new Conroe systems."
There is one problem with this comment, the general public doen't know the difference between Conroe and P4.
I would believe they are looking at price not specs.
Anonymous said...
"The rest of the computer universe belongs to AMD for the foreseeable future."
How do you figure, there are numerous site claiming if Conroe ramps up fast enough, AMD is in trouble.
Dear Bruno --
You wrote:
"Bruno Dieter Chan said...
I think what Sharikou is trying to tell you, The Sheepshagger, is that after forcing Dell to pick up a lot of excess P4 cpus they went ahead and suddenly released Conroe and hype it up saying it was 40% faster than their counter parts.
Not only that they over hyped it up they also sold all the P4 then at the price to any customer. Dell, being a loyal customer that always support Intel and helped it get rid of their stock had a huge bunch of Intel cpu that they can't sell with their system at the same profit level they used to."
I'd be more than willing to discuss this with you further when you can explain to me how:
A) Anybody forced Dell to purchase what you defined as 'excess P4 cpus'. What I'm really trying to resolve is if you believe Dell should have not ordered any parts and not sold a single system to customers that wanted to buy computers until the Conroe was released? Further, Dell invented the business model of direct sales for computers and one of the benefits of direct sales is they don't hold more than a couple weeks of inventory... PERIOD. In good times and bad they order what they need to fill the current market conditions. So I'd love to hear more about the forcing of anyone to buy 'excess P4 cpus'. Feel free to cite a published reference as proof.
B) When was this 'sudden release of Conroe'?! I must have missed that. Unless you're talking about the 18 month in advance product roadmap that both AMD and Intel use to notify their customers, investors, and analysts. Everyone knew when Conroe was going to arrive, although I will concede half-credit for Conroe not being a delayed launch by Intel; in fact it was a few weeks early, with ample time for any OEM to adjust their inventory.
C) I'm realy not sure if I would say Intel hyped the chip to say it was 40% better then their counter parts. Firstly, I'm not sure if by counter parts you mean AMD's chips or if you mean previous Intel chips. The reality is that Conroe is a modest 20% improvement gain over AMD chips and a solid 40% improvement over previous Intel architecture. As far as the hype, I'd like to kindly direct you to 3rd parties that run benchmarks tests and analysis. I'd really say their the one's that led the hype. Intel just backed it up by delivering the goods.
As far as Dell not being able to sell at the same price they've enjoyed selling at, I can't comment. Perhaps it is time for them to re-invent themselves, restructure, or look for something. The reality is, the only time you can blame a chip maker for Dell's financial woes is if the chipmaker didn't deliver the parts and Dell lost sales to another OEM because they didn't have the inventory to build a computer.
you're off quite a bit on what you've stated for Intel's ASP. But then again... it was just an assumption, right?
Dude, I was considering the price war. In science, you consider boundary conditions. In a price war, one thing you consider is: if Intel sells CPUs at $0, which company will BK first. I was just doing that analysis, and my conclusion was Intel would BK first.
I would believe they are looking at price not specs.
Exactly and $93 for a 805D, $113 for a 820D, and $133 for a 915D are great prices especially for a dual core. They may not be the fastest or the most power efficient, but for that price they are a great deal. As long as those models sell, Intel will be able to clear Netburst inventory very easily since all 90nm Netbursts can be sold as a 805D or 820D and 65nm Netbursts sold as 915D or 945D. As well, with the dual die approach Intel is clearing out single cores twice as fast as selling individually.
One last thought direct towards Sharikou regard this being a 'WIN' for AMD.
I would agree that by general business rules a 'WIN' is whenever you make a sale to someone you previously hadn't sold or supplied products.
A major win would be like Coke winning a contract with a food chain or a theater chain that previously supplied Pepsi products. In that example, you become the sole supplier of goods or you replace what another supplier used to supply in that market.
In the case of Dell announcing to systems with AMD chips previously in the server realm and now in the desktop realm, AMD isn't a single supplier, nor are they a replacement supplier. If you read the fine print of the announcement, you'll not that the Dell isn't replacing an Intel product line... they are creating a new product lines that will include AMD chips.
So yes... it is a win for finally getting another foot in the door. The difference to be determined will be played out in the quarters to come when we can actually compare if Dell sold less Intel systems than in previous quarters, or if Dell just improved over-all numbers shipped.
Dude... you're getting a Dell, aren't you?!
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
"Dude, I was considering the price war. In science, you consider boundary conditions. In a price war, one thing you consider is: if Intel sells CPUs at $0, which company will BK first. I was just doing that analysis, and my conclusion was Intel would BK first.
9:27 PM, August 17, 2006"
Good point. I'm all in favor of science and investing in companies that sell their products for $0.
My counter question is... in all the years that AMD didn't have a single profitable quarter (pardon me for not having a reference to quote but I believe it was 18 consecutive quarters in the red), why didn't they BK? And yet you expect Intel to BK in 5-9 quarters? Seriously?! Or is this just more science and assumptions?! Smoke and mirrors, perhaps?!
Okay... forget the sassiness in my tone... just please... Answer my first question...
Are you getting a Dell now?
Duuuuuuuuuuuuude... you're getting a Dell... I know it.
My counter question is... in all the years that AMD didn't have a single profitable quarter (pardon me for not having a reference to quote but I believe it was 18 consecutive quarters in the red), why didn't they BK? And yet you expect Intel to BK in 5-9 quarters?
AMD made a lot of money with Athlon. But Intel, through exclusive deals, almost forced AMD into BK. Before AMD introduced Opteron, it was near BK. Intel's BK will be fast and violent because its larger size and larger fixed cost.
Good lord you are stupid. Don't they have logical fallacies 101 at this supposed school where you got your PHD? I'm kidding - we all know you have no PHD and actually are subhuman in intellect.
I bought this meteor repellent the other day. Guess what, I haven't been hit by a meteor since then. Ergo, this meteor repellent works!
This is your logic. AMD went up after Intel changed policy, ergo Intel broke the law. You are such a stupid liar.
A idiot said
"
AMD made a lot of money with Athlon. But Intel, through exclusive deals, almost forced AMD into BK. Before AMD introduced Opteron, it was near BK. Intel's BK will be fast and violent because its larger size and larger fixed cost."
Really, like GM, Chrysler and others being big and inefficenty are a few quarters from bankruptcy? I don't think so. Like I've said the Phd prentender is jacking off to much and needs some pussy.
INTEL has had its issues, but bankruptcy.. don't think so. They are the most profitable semiconductor company on earth. Will stay so even with the price war. Look back at 2005 with their Netbust technology getting kicked in every benchmark but they still made 8 billion. AMD was riding a huge wave and couldn't do squat. It had nothing to do with some backdoor deal. AMD never had the capacity nor manufacturing. Chicken / egg problem AMD's problem was they didn't mortage the future to lay the capacity egg in 2002. If they did and had an empty fab they would have something. They got nothing like you but their right hand to jack off with.
Enjoy your magazine in the bathroom
AMD went up after Intel changed policy, ergo Intel broke the law. You are such a stupid liar.
No Intel broke the law because it broke the law. AMD will present the evidence to the jury. The current AMD expansion is useful in determining the amount of damage. For instance, if AMD could grow market to 60% in two years once Intel stopped illegal activities, one can argue Intel caused AMD to lose 40% market potential from 2000-2005. That's at least $12 billion loss, treble damage will be $36 billion. Simple math. At the end, AMD owns Intel -- unless Intel BKs before the end of trial.
INTEL has had its issues, but bankruptcy.. don't think so.
It's simple. Intel will suffer massive operating losses in the next 5-7 quarters. Once its $4 billion net cash is exhausted and it can't pay debt, it will BK. AMD will keep the lid on Intel by selling massive quantity of chips right below Intel's cost.
Interesting theories and lessons in simple math. I take back everything I've said in the past few hours. I've taken the leap of faith and bought into everything you have said. You're right. It is just that simple.
And now that I'm on your side, we should prepare our defences and master our spin doctoring for whose that will accuse us for being monopolostic after slaying the beast that is/was Intel. Are you free Tuesday for lunch? I'll pencil you in!
Damn you, Intel! Damn you all to hell!!! You'll rue the day you ever acted in any illegal way towards Intel... and victory will be OURS!!!!
"I bought this meteor repellent the other day. Guess what, I haven't been hit by a meteor since then. Ergo, this meteor repellent works!"
A better (more logical) comparison of the AMD-INTEL case and your meteor analogy is this:
1. AMD's market share was punished by Intel's policies before 2005.
2. Intel changed policies amid the lawsuit, and since then AMD's market share grew 60%.
3. Intel's policies were thus proven to be monopolistic (due to its massive market share) AND anti-competitiveness (i.e., they broke the laws).
"They may not be the fastest or the most power efficient, but for that price they are a great deal."
You are either desperate Intel resellers, shareholders, or managers to say that.
These Pentium-D chips are slow - even P-D 940 is slower than X2 3800+. These chips are hot. These chips and their motherboards do not upgrade. So to save $20-$50, you recommend people to spend $400 on a box that is meant to obsolete in 6 months (or sooner)? Once that poor soul who listens to your "great deal" discovers that his machine runs slow & hot & noisy on Vista, what will you suggest him? Spend another $200 for CPU+MB and a whole day if not more to reinstall & setup?
"For although they have not been known for their fair business practices, they are responsible for one thing: competition."
Competition in a wrong way can actually hurt the industry. People have been saying so on the "cut-throat" competition between nVidia and ATi. The "competing measures" that Intel put forward to beat out the x86 CPU makers were mostly anti-competitive, too.
IMO, a healthy market should have more than 2 strong players, none of which is dominant (i.e., semi-monopolistic like Intel). How could today's PC industry become like that? Let's assume that Intel does bankrupt in 2008. Since its size is 10 times bigger than AMD, it's conceivable that one way of restructuring it is to divide it into a few smaller, but individually more efficient companies.
Does anybody here have both AMD and a Intel Duo 2? Can anybody back up their clams that a AMD is inferrior to a DUO2? No for one because I have both. Again benchmarks don't mean anything.
The fact is if you had intel all your life your going to see a big difference and automaticly assume that intel is way better then the AMD chips. Well I have both I can tell you because I'm neurtal I can say there really isn't a difference I can tell.
Even if its a 10% difference I wouldn't call a AMD chip infirior it would only be 2nd best but the difference all intel boys act is a big one. It really isn't. In the real world DUO2 again is only made for benches and the real world power feels lacking from what it clames it can do. I see or feel no differences and I'm in editing of computer art. Doesn't get the job done any faster.
Both chips I think are equal. A X2 to a E model. Nothing to get excited over. Nice and all Intel cought up atleast after being behind for 3 years.
AMD will keep the lid on Intel by selling massive quantity of chips right below Intel's cost.
Sharikou - don't be naive. Do you think AMD will sell chips below Intel's cost and Intel will not react but throw their hands up and go BK. Intel is the one who is now selling PD's below AMD's cost...in addition to which they are selling masses of Pentium's in emerging markets at 70$. Guess what - game over Sempron by Q1 07. X2 3600 not even in sight and still too expensive at 130$. Channel pissed with AMD because they cannot meet dual core supply...put weight behind PD. AMD bleeding like a stuck pig by Q1 07 as Intel sandiwches X2 between PD and Core 2 while knocking out Sempron. Dell dead in the water because they have commoditised themselves in the PC business by focussing on price only while HP is investing in innovation and marketing. Apple starts eating Dell & HP's lunch in PCs w/ virtualization on Core 2 allowing Windows users to migrate. Then, they blow open the floodgates by late 2007 with a true PC and CE converged digital home device connected to iTunes which is also selling movies and TV content by then. At which point nobody wants a clunky PC - they want a cool small form CE like gadget. AMD + ATI try but cannot succeed in this space because they don't have the platform level software capability or the ability to carry the content eco-system. PC is completely commoditized and AMD/ATI are playing the wrong game.
AMD will declare a GAAP loss by end Q2 07 if not earlier. They will BK by end 2008 and probably be bought by nVidia.
Surplus production capacity is a real threat for INTEL...
California: D2 - 200mm 90nm
Oregon: F20 - 200mm,
D1C - 300mm 90nm->65nm (Q4'06),
D1D - 300mm 65nm (R&D 45nm);
Arizona: F12 - 300mm 65nm,
F22 - 200mm 90nm,
F32 - 300mm 45nm (under construction -> fully operational Q4'07);
New Mexico: F11 - 200mm,
F21 - 300mm 90nm;
Colorado: F23 - 200mm;
Massachusset: F17 - 200mm;
Ireland: F14 - 200mm,
F24-2 - 300mm 65nm (since june 2006) ;
Isreal: F18 - 200mm 90nm,
F28 - 300mm 45nm (under construction -> fully operational Q1'08 or Q2'08)
vs
AMD Fab30 (-> Fab38), Fab36, Fab40 (2010)
Chartered Semiconductor Fab7 (since june 2006)
Chief financial officer Andy Bryant mentioned that a process transition today requires an investment of either $1 billion to retrofit an existing factory or more than $3 billion to build a new plant.
[June 2006] Intel Reaches 90-65nm Cross-Over
“cross-over,” means that Intel is currently producing more than half of our mobile, desktop and server microprocessors using industry-leading 65nm process technology.
Desktop OEM Guidance (transition guidance NetBurst -> Core2)
~10% Q3'06
~20% Q4'06
~35% Q1'07
> 50% Q2'07
2007 AMD K8L
2008 AMD "New Core" vs Intel Core #3
"Chief financial officer Andy Bryant mentioned that a process transition today requires an investment of either $1 billion to retrofit an existing factory or more than $3 billion to build a new plant."
Could you imagine how much lower Dell stock would be if it weren't for the AMD desktop announcement?
As for AMD chips in Dell laptops, I suspect that Dell is waiting for Bulldozer (the code-name for the next-gen Turion X2). Unlike the current Turion X2 (a stripped-down Opteron with battery-boosting technologies), Bulldozer will be a new power-optimized architecture separate from K8L designed for notebooks. If AMD does it right (and I supsect they will), Intel will really need to be afraid.
The Sheepshagger, nice that we can talk. I'll to explain my points that you have brought up more clearly.
A: Lets put it this way. When Dell did pick a sufficient quota from Intel, Intel neutralised Dell's partnership advantage with Intel buy setting uniform pricing.
IMO Intel used the Iron Fist behind the Velvet Glove on Dell especially when they were receiving request for AMD servers from their customers. Along the lines of, 'If you buy up a certain amount of chips this quarter (or whatever time frame) you will lose your benifits from future benefits." Dell, tells them tough, the server customers' forcus is going AMD's direction and they do not want to spend additional funds buying Intel chips as well as AMD chips. It goes one or the other. So they went AMD server chips instead of Intel's lot. This makes Intel mad cause they got to offload their starting to bloat stock. Uniform pricing scheme kicks in so more can get the chips more easily instead of worrying about the order size to price ratio. But didn't help move much, so they chop the price off at the knees. Dell's thinking they ain't making enough profit off Intel's new prices so they decided to stick with AMD where they will get higher margins and don't have to monkey around any more with Intel politics. Of course that's my opinion.
B. and C. Actually, I'm wrong in the terms of sudden release of Conroe. I meant sudden hyping along with the price cuts to slot the Conroe into the current P4 price ranges. I'm sure Dell was grinding their teeth thinking, "Goddamn its like buying shares that devalue by half next day and will never raise again." I seriously don't know how much stock of Intel chips Dell has before the 50% discount but I can tell you all that stock (that they still had) is a huge loss for them. And am sure asking Intel whether they get some rebates with the new Conroe orders will probably get a big F U now that they burn that bridge by going AMD.
Then again what the hell do I know. All I know is if am Michael I sure wouldn't put up with any of that nonsense from a company that I have where almost exclusively bought their products for almost 20 years.
BTW not sure about this but selling a product below your cost to manufacture either to flood the market to capture share or just to get rid oohhh lets say 4 billion worth stock is illegal right?
[June 2006] Intel Reaches 90-65nm Cross-Over
“cross-over,” means that Intel is currently producing more than half of our mobile, desktop and server microprocessors using industry-leading 65nm process technology.
This indicates that the majority of Intel's wafer starts today are for legacy chips -- 50% at 90nm, and a boat load of Core Duo, and boat loads of Pentium D.
Could someone tell me why intel didn't implement HyperTranport? It seems to be the unavoidable approach for high end servers. There are some rumors about the India office screwing it up, but I am not sure.
For on-die memory controller, I heard that there is still issues with power saving feature, but HyperTransport was mature three years ago~
Thanks!
Your complete obliviousness to reality never ceases to amaze me, Sharikou.
Firstly: The Dell/AMD deal has been in the works for years, and everyone knew this move was coming months ago. The reason Dell chose to expand their AMD offerings has less to do with AMD and more to do with Dell's current situation. In short, they're getting their asses handed to them on a silver platter by HP. What do they do then, to try to regroup? They do what HP has done for some time: they expand their offerings.
Secondly: Your claim about this making a stronger case for AMD is entirely flawed. If anything, it reverses the tables. AMD had a superior product and couldn't gain MSS, so it complained. Now, AMD has an inferior product and is having some of the best growth it's EVER had. I suspect that AMD is kicking itself for sueing in the first place, because what was supposed to be a groundbreaking legal case that removed an impenetrable obstacle to AMD's competetiveness is now simply a sign of how AMD reacts in a difficult market: lawsuits instead of better technology.
Lastly: The odds of Dell going from their current "expanded offerings" course to an "AMD only" course is counter-intuitive, not realistic, and frankly just makes you look like the naive, uninformed, rambling adolescent that you are.
Also important to note here is that the AMD offerings announced dont replace any Intel offerings, they simply add more variety.
RE: anonymous@4:29 AM
PC is completely commoditized and AMD/ATI are playing the wrong game.
I guess you don't know how well ATI is doing in the consumer electronics space. Merger w/ ATI with get AMD into new markets.
Intel, try as they might,
won't succeed outside the PC realm as Barrett's pet projects are being dismantled.
ATI/AMD play well with partners, Intel doesn't.
Secondly: Your claim about this making a stronger case for AMD is entirely flawed. If anything, it reverses the tables. AMD had a superior product and couldn't gain MSS, so it complained. Now, AMD has an inferior product and is having some of the best growth it's EVER had. I suspect that AMD is kicking itself for sueing in the first place, because what was supposed to be a groundbreaking legal case that removed an impenetrable obstacle to AMD's competetiveness is now simply a sign of how AMD reacts in a difficult market: lawsuits instead of better technology.
You're not thinking clearly, and falling into the same old trap so many others have. You fail to realize that the lawsuit OPENED UP the markets for AMD. Why is that so hard to understand for people?
AMD is not "kicking itself" for bringing the lawsuit against Intel. It is in fact one of the most important things AMD has ever done for themselves, and also for the industry as a whole. It is painfully obvious that for years Intel strong-armed as many "partners" as they could to make sure AMD was unable to gain a foothold.
In fact, the lawsuit only proves even further that Intel WAS indeed using illegal tactics to keep AMD down. Even when AMD had the performance lead on the desktop, they found it difficult to gain markets. Now that AMD has a ~10-20% slower desktop part, they are gaining anyway. What does that tell you?
AMD had a superior product and couldn't gain MSS, so it complained. Now, AMD has an inferior product and is having some of the best growth it's EVER had. I suspect that AMD is kicking itself for sueing in the first place, because what was supposed to be a groundbreaking legal case that removed an impenetrable obstacle to AMD's competetiveness is now simply a sign of how AMD reacts in a difficult market: lawsuits instead of better technology.
You don't get it. Attempting to maintain a monopoly is a crime. AMD will prove that to the jury with facts. Whether Intel is guilty is solely determined by Intel's own activities. Understand? You follow?
Then, once Intel is found guilty or liable with Intel's own activities alone, it comes to the question of damages. At that point, AMD needs to prove it suffered loss of revenue and entitled to treble damages -- that is, if Intel hadn't done those evil things, AMD would have made more revenue. The difference between the potential revenue and real is the amount of damage.
Intel's defense right now is the following: regardless of what Intel did (monopoly or not), AMD's did not suffer as a consequence of Intel's wrongs. Intel says there was no damage.
AMD will prove it suffered damage--loss of revenue. This is now very easy to prove.
Whether Intel is guilty is solely determined by Intel's own activities. Understand? You follow?
Let me further this point. 100 Joe Blows sued Intel for anti-trust violations. These separate cases later consolidated into one. Joe Blows don't make CPUs, understand that? Nonetheless, Joe Blows will prove to the jury that Intel violated anti-trust laws with Intel's own activities. Whether Joe Blow was flipping hamburgers or writing Java code doesn't matter.
So, now you can understand the relevance of DELL deal to the lawsuit. It will be an evidence in determining the damages once Intel is found in violation of law.
I have a question maybe you can answer Sharikou.
Was AMD at 100% manufacturing capacity for all of those years prior to the lawsuit?
If so what damages could they really be asking for since there second fab only came online this year, and there ability to manufacture more chips would have been void?
Hence no damage because they couldn't have made more chips anyways.
Thanks in advance if you could answer this.
Though I don't know how this will work out, the upcoming SEC investigation of DELL may uncover some transactions that INTC would rather remain buried, in light of the AMD lawsuit. How public the details of the SEC findings become, I can't guess, but I can say the c2d people will be using all their leverage to supress any findings that might support AMD''s case.
Was AMD at 100% manufacturing capacity for all of those years prior to the lawsuit?
Of course not. FAB36 only started delivery in late March 2006. AMD market share was above 20% before but dropped to 14% because of the exclusive Intel deals. There were thus two parts of damages
1) Direct loss due to unsold capacity: (20-14) *5 = 30% of world 's CPU. That's 60 million units and $5.4 billion dollars. (ASP $90).
2) Loss of potential growth because of the loss of profit. Without the $5.4 billion loss, AMD could have built two more new FABs and took 50% of the market. I estimate at least another $20 billion loss there.
"Of course not. FAB36 only started delivery in late March 2006."
I was talking directly about FAB 30 producing 100% manufacturing capacity, since FAB 36 was not complete.
Could FAB 30 alone produce 30% of the worlds CPU's?
If not, they can not receive damages to the amount your talking about, if they cant produce 30%, they cant recieve damages for 30% right?
"AMD could have built two more new FABs and took 50% of the market."
This seems like a contradiction, if they need two FAB's to make 30% of the worlds CPU's, then they go to four FAB's to make 50%, what am I missing?
This would seem like they were not able to make 30% of the world's CPU's with FAB 30, and will not get the damages you propose.
Thanks.
Could FAB 30 alone produce 30% of the worlds CPU's?
You don't get it. AMD was doing more than 20%, and Intel pushed it down to 14% for 5 years. 60 million units, $5.4 billion direct damage there. Treble that, $16.2 billion.
Then, there is the potential loss on top of that damage. Intel could be looking at a huge legal bill there.
Sorry about that, I was looking at your numbers incorrectly.
I get the 30% now.
Thanks.
"You don't get it. AMD was doing more than 20%, and Intel pushed it down to 14% for 5 years. 60 million units, $5.4 billion direct damage there. Treble that, $16.2 billion.
Then, there is the potential loss on top of that damage. Intel could be looking at a huge legal bill there."
Even if AMD wins the lawsuit, and gets as much in damages as they should, AMD won't see a dime from Intel. By the time the suit is over, Intel will be in enough debt that AMD wont actually collect. As it is, AMD taking 90% of the x86 market is enough I think.
RE: mojo@11:18 AM
Yes if you're talking about the ViiV or AMD LIVE platforms, Intel is ahead due to the huge resources it spent to promote that brand. But ViiV and AMD LIVE are still niche products.
AMD's interest is, with the help of ATI, to strengthen platform in the commercial space to sell more business PCs and notebooks; to strengthen the mobile platform to compete with Centrino.
Wouldn't people want cheaper cellphones too?
Then AMD/ATI's integrated products could very well help cut the costs and even add more functions for future phones.
AMD did not grap market share 2003-2005 because they did not have a good history of execution.. OEMs were skeptical rightly so.
If OEMs switched to Opteron and Athlon in 2003, they would not have enough.. EXECUTION
Dell win is not necessarily a good thing for AMD.. Why?
If you have dealt with Dell, you would know that they are not different from MS. They will squeeze your A$$ for profit.. that is something that AMD has to watch for.
Now I think about it, it looks like AMD will try to please Dell as much as they can and will suffer greatly in the process. I think Dell as we Knew it is dead and will go on a spiral not because of switching to AMD, but because their business model is dead and their design really sucks.
People nowadays care about design, too.
"AMD did not grap market share 2003-2005 because they did not have a good history of execution.. OEMs were skeptical rightly so."
Which part of AMD didn't "execute" since Athlon, compared to Intel? Well, AMD lost performance crown briefly during 2002, where the initial Thoroughbred was a bit hot; but beside this short period, AMD's processors are largely better overclockers, better performers, and lower priced. AMD has perfect record, AFAIK, with its customers, unlike Intel who took advantage of them. And you're saying that AMD didn't have what, EXECUTION?
How much Intel marketing BS have you been doped with to say that? How about backing up your claims with some evidence first?
"You don't get it. AMD was doing more than 20%, and Intel pushed it down to 14% for 5 years. 60 million units, $5.4 billion direct damage there. Treble that, $16.2 billion.
Then, there is the potential loss on top of that damage. Intel could be looking at a huge legal bill there."
Legal bill is going to be hard on both sides, more so on AMD.
Microsoft has far more marketshare and power then Apple, Real, Sun, and its other competitors, they've paid no where near $16B.
Dell win is not necessarily a good thing for AMD.. Why?
If you have dealt with Dell, you would know that they are not different from MS. They will squeeze your A$$ for profit.. that is something that AMD has to watch for.
Now I think about it, it looks like AMD will try to please Dell as much as they can and will suffer greatly in the process.
I've heard stories from people who work with Dell, they try to squeeze every last penny out of their design, then use massive bulk to get the best price while maintaining high profits.
AMD is not stupid. AMD knows Dell needs them to be profitable. AMD also knows they don't need Dell at to be profitable. The Dell win is purely psychological, AMD was production limited before Dell jumped on board, and they will be production limited afterwards. AMD wont hurt themselves to let Dell scrape every last penny.
Dell win is not necessarily a good thing for AMD
One more AMD sold is one fewer Intel sold. AMD will make some profit from DELL deal, but profit is not the game. The focus of the game is not making profit right now, but to kill the competition. This was the cut throat war Intel started, but it's AMD's job to finish it. Intel will see large operating losses and BK quite soon. If I were Hector, I will try get DELL to exclude Intel by offering him some major discounts -- since AMD is not a monopoly, such exclusive deals are perfectly legal.
Some dude wrote:
Dell win is not necessarily a good thing for AMD
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
"One more AMD sold is one fewer Intel sold...."
Omg! Some dude is just so dumb. Why even bother to waste time to reply??? Would it be a greater service to the people if you concentrate on the technical stuff like HT advantage...
I personally would like to see the doc write some cool articles "why Intel still refuse to go with SOI" or tech stuff like that.
Another cool topic is dual core for laptop could be over-kill. When people get smart they might switch back to single core. AMD has single core Turion with 64-bit.
Intel does not have a single laptop core with 64 bit. That would be a killer product hole against Intel.
-Longan-
-Longan- said...
"Intel does not have a single laptop core with 64 bit. That would be a killer product hole against Intel."
Why use a single core when you could have a dual core which will use very little power?
Also why is dual core on a laptop overkill?
enumae wrote:
"Why use a single core when you could have a dual core which will use very little power?
Also why is dual core on a laptop overkill? "
There is no such dual core which will use very little power. Even so, same technology, same design, cut a way one core save power. The static leakage is what kill the power. I am not talking about the dynamic power consumption; that can be gated with clock. The static leakage is what drain the battery even you are at idle, gated clock, slow-down clock.
For laptop, I want something light, small battery, long-lasting battery. Dual-core drains more juice than single-core. If I want any big job to run, I use my desk-top. Not everybody is road-warrior/code-warrior, you know.
-Longan-
Sharikou "Intel is expected to BK in 1Q08 to 3Q08 time frame."
It being Q3'06 this is 6-8 quarters from now. Is this a new prediction after your previous 5-7 quarter predictions made a quarter ago? (meaning 4-6 quarters from now). You have pushed out your old prediction by 6 months!
Edward: "Which part of AMD didn't "execute" since Athlon, compared to Intel?"
The production side - this is not the fault of the actual production facilities as they could only do so much with one fab. This is the fault of senior management who waited too long to finally build F36 and ramp it. If AMD had that production capacity on line 1 year earlier they would easily be at 30% market share by now (and would have been better equipped for prices war as 300mm prodution is ~30% cheaper than 200mm on a per/cm2 of Si basis)
Also while people keep saying 65nm is on schedule, the original schedule was to startup F36 on it, not 90nm! It's on schedule per the REVISED schedule.
"This is the fault of senior management who waited too long to finally build F36 and ramp it. If AMD had that production capacity on line 1 year earlier they would easily be at 30% market share by now"
You do know that until 2003 AMD was not making money and thus was cache-tight. AMD surviving Intel's monopolistic marketing AND coming up with superior chips and a new fab (a bit late in your view) are already great execution, IMO.
"Also while people keep saying 65nm is on schedule, the original schedule was to startup F36 on it, not 90nm! It's on schedule per the REVISED schedule."
What I understood is that AMD moved forward Fab 36 but pushed back 65nm. That is a good move, since AMD needs the extra capacity in early 2006. It makes more sense to produce enough 90nm for the market before turning to 65nm.
Sharikou wrote: "No matter how Intel fanbois want to distract, the fact is, Core Duo laptops exploded."
Please be intellectually honest and disclose the fact that Apple is also recalling the very same Sony batteries,
From Daily Tech: "As is the case with the Dell batteries recalled, Apple’s notebook batteries were also manufactured by Sony. The recall doesn't affect the newer Intel-based notebooks, but does include the 12" iBook G4, 12" PowerBook G4 and 15" PowerBook G4."
So are you going to rip on IBM now because their CPUs were in those Apple laptops?
Post a Comment
<< Home