Crap INTC analyst saying what I said long time ago
They say Intel will exit 2006 with only 25% Core 2, mix no good. But they still fail to point out the obvious consequences of that: 75% of Intel's production exiting 2006 will be total crap.
I have analysed this to you long time ago. 95% of Intel's inventory is crap, 75% production is crap, nobody wants crap, nobody wants 95% of its products to be crap, so everybody will go AMD as much as possible, so DELL will go AMD. Intel loses units and sells at lower prices, massive operating losses. Conroe ramps up, Intel folks ready to dance. But K8L comes along, frags Conroe. Intel totally dead in the water. BK.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 9/18/2006 07:41:00 AM
31 Comments:
"They say Intel will exit 2006 with only 25% Core 2"
As someone said Intel will produce about 1M C2D chips in 7 months. Does that mean that in total there are less than 4M Netburst+C2D chips out by the year end? Someone please explain me who got things wrong.
You do know that 25% of Intel is way more than 100% of AMD?
So I dont see ANY reason why ANYONE would want to go AMD rather than Core2
From the quoted article: as steady-state market share goes from previous 80/20 to an estimated 70/30
Oh dear, the evidence shows only 30% market share. The whole article must therefore be crap and uninformed.
Also, if production is 25% Core 2, some production is also likely Core- which, while less competitive than Core2, hardly merits the Sharikou "Crap" rating. Same with the Pentium M architecture- Turion just doesn't have enough penetration of the mobile market to put the hurt on Intel there. Our occasionally crap, sometimes useful analyst doesn't give us a level of insight to clue us in to how much is actually Netburst (SK-CrapWorthy) related however...
some production is also likely Core- which, while less competitive than Core2, hardly merits the Sharikou "Crap" rating.
Core is worse than Netburst. Netburst at least can emulate AMD64, Core is a pure piece of junk that can't even run the code.
Those buying Core Duo today are simply computer-retards.
You do know that 25% of Intel is way more than 100% of AMD?
So I dont see ANY reason why ANYONE would want to go AMD rather than Core2
Intel has 73% of the mkt, 25% of that is 18%. There is the rest 82% filled by crap Netburst and Core Duo 32 bit chips and powerful and energy efficient AMD64 chips.
I am talking about 1Q07 above. Right now, Conroe is 5% of the market.
In any case, AMD slowest horse is faster than 75% of Intel's horses. That's why DELL has to go AMD and that's why Intel will BK.
Many have tried to tell you before about the vast majority of consuming public.
THEY ARE UNINFORMED AND ARE INTERESTED ONLY IN PRICE.
Netburst will sell, you will see $250 systems (I have seen them already at OD) and they will fly off the shelves.
Did Intel make a lot of money on them? No. Did they lose money on them? No.
You have no idea how cheap high yielding mature products on a mature process in a loaded fab can be.
Sure they are crap, and I wouldn't buy one, but I am 1 or 2 in a crowd of ten.
Netburst will sell, you will see $250 systems (I have seen them already at OD) and they will fly off the shelves.
Did Intel make a lot of money on them? No. Did they lose money on them? No.
When AMD sells a Sempron at $50, it makes $10. When Intel sells a Pentium/Celeron at $50, it loses $20. The more Intel sells at $50, the more it loses. The more Intel loses, the faster it BKs.
I analysed this before. AMD will beat Pentium D with Athlon 64 X2 and Pentium with Athlon 64 on price and performance.
You do know that 25% of Intel is way more than 100% of AMD?
So I dont see ANY reason why ANYONE would want to go AMD rather than Core2
Why people keep pumping with that.
How does that change the fact that by year end 75% from Intel processors is still crap.
Or you want to blame AMD for having just 20% of the market.
Truth is if AMD is able to sell a Sempron for $50, Intel will be well able to sell a celeron with same rating for $70-80.
Okay, let us put aside Sharkie's hate trip against Intel and look at the content:
Fact #1" There is a lot of Pentium 4 out there.
This is the only fact of this blog entry.
And does this really matter? Are most of the people using a PC crazed dudes that debate what chip they are using? No.
Pentium 4 works fine, is stable, and gets the job done. For the vast majority of tasks, Pentium 4 is a good chip.
So Intel is making a lot of good chips.
Somehow I just don't see what the issue is.
Intel has more than enough Core 2 production to satisfy all the chip-heads and their autistic approach to cpu selection.
Maybe even one left over that they can give to Sharkie so he can run the world's fastest x86 chip... in secret ;-)
I just looked around at my company; previous companies where I worked, too. EVERY SINGLE machine is Netburst or P-M; there is not a single AMD anywhere in the place, out of hundreds of computers. My new machine is a P4HT 524 in a Pico-BTX box, I think is what it's called. It is one of 2-3 dozen or so just replaced in the last month or so, regular lease upgrades.
Hey Core Duo doesn't do 64 bit? So what? Bet you forgot to do the same market research that Intel did that says the laptop users generally don't upgrade anything on their laptops, aside from adding software. And there will be no shortage of 32-bit apps for the foreseeable future. In fact, in work and home I don't run anything in 64-bit. 95 out of 100 users agree. The 64-bit universe will come about 2-3 years after Vista. 64 bit in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 is still marketing hype - can you smell it?
Sharidoof quoting processor profits; did AMD and Intel share their balance sheets w/ you? Kinda hard to say AMD is still long-term profitable when it is only short-term that they ever make money.
Core is worse than Netburst. Netburst at least can emulate AMD64, Core is a pure piece of junk that can't even run the code.
So what? How pervasive is 64 bit code these days? Will the average consumer notice? Care?
For your reference, I checked out the AMD64 ecosystem page. http://www.amdcompare.com/ecosystem/en-us/amd64/default.aspx?Segment=Consumer. For consumer apps, there are a few games that are 64 bit enabled, and most 64bit enabled apps currently only run on... WIN32. So what? I'm not buying the promise of upgradability, and neither are most consumers. Pay for what I need now, not in X years... the early AMD64 adopters (3 years ago!) will likely have moved on to new systems long before there is real 64bit SW availability. Like it or not, that isn't Intel at work, just buyer behavior. 64bit isn't ready or needed yet, and I would bet that less than 1% of the market won't buy Core because it doesn't support 64bit yet. The true consumers of 64bit compute power will be buying Woodcrest, Opteron, or big iron (Power/SPARC/Itanium/PA-RISC) solutions.
"Core is worse than Netburst. Netburst at least can emulate AMD64, Core is a pure piece of junk that can't even run the code.
Those buying Core Duo today are simply computer-retards."
?
Netburst has only been 64 bit for a while. Core is mobile only for the most part. Mobile won't be able to handle HDDVD/Bluray, unless they're installed with Vista 64, which Turion, Core 2 are. But then you would need a new drive, basically new machine. Core Duos have better battery life than AMD's mobile and Core 2(though less performance).
Dr PhD, please show us the details that we can conclusively convince ourselves that what INTEL's cost on 65nm is with Netburst? I missed it Doc.
THe split makes perfect sense
Top end 10-20% of total market results in the Core2 production
AMD taking the middle stream.. 25% of market share
The bottom end represents 70% of the market share. Joe Best buy wants a simple/cheap/reliabile computer. Walks up and takes home a Celeron D or PentiumIV.
All makes sense, just show us the numbers that backup the banrkuptcy statement in simple numbers that include all the obvious things like wafer starts, yield, cost etc. etc. No funny enron math please
Where are the numbers doctor PhD.. show me the detailed calculations! Clearly with a PhD you can provide some detailed numbers that won't confuse us stupid fanboys..
Please don't tease provide the numbers, calculations for the BK of INTEL...
Oh.. maybe its all a wetdream of yours...
Prove me wrong and a fanboy I wait you pretender you....
Intel going bankrupt???? You must be joking man. This company makes billions of dollars a year and if I recall it hasn't ever been in the red. Amd on the other hand. Well you are a funny character, kind of remind me of that guy that saddam had on TV when the war started. We are crushing the americans...they are on the run. Ha,ha. Well keep up the good humor.
Intel, let me introduce you to Hayes, who also had a gambler like yours leading.
kind of remind me of that guy that saddam had on TV when the war started. We are crushing the americans...they are on the run
Considering what's happening in Iraq now, it looks like his prediction might actually come true.
One thing I am wondering is, what is Intel going to do to update their platform in the next 3-4 years? They can't push out new cores connected to an old crappy legacy bus forever. It is no easy task to update an entire processor line to run on a new architecture.
Core2 seems like a short term solution to me.
Terek Aziz was his name ! maybe it's Sharikou's real name?
"Mobile won't be able to handle HDDVD/Bluray"
A Blu-Ray drive is roughly $800-$1000.
That is much more than many laptops cost.
And the real point is that video decoding is moving, almost completely over time, to the video processor. Duh.
Which is just one of the many reasons why the whole "64 bit" argument is 100% bullshit.
If you are using 64-bit for a consumer desktop anytime in the next few years, that is the true retard.
All you will be doing is spending your life debugging your OS and drivers. For free.
Versus using the computer to get something done.
2010 will be the first year that 64-bit makes sense. Before then, it is just a waste of time and money.
It is more to me, Intel is ending this year with shipping 25 % as conroes, means . They are starting 07 with 25 % in conroe.
25% of intel production is less than 25 % of market, leaving >75 % of market to amd and Pentium D / celeron.
Allthough some amd cpu's share the upper performance area WITH Conroe. NOT ALL , but a broad range.
Might be a good indication that amd will have a major shift to X2 in all flavors.
Made by the Conroe, lifting up the standard performance level -away from celeron !
Thank You, Conroe !
"Made by the Conroe, lifting up the standard performance level -away from celeron !"
Fear not because there will be a new "celeron" really soon. it should be something like single core Core 2 with 1M L2.
No response on why a processor is crap just because it doesn't support 64bit code? Maybe because there isn't any need? As I said before- look at the AMD website- no consumer apps other than a few games and a couple of lesser A/V apps. Lots of marketing hype, but no need. 64 bit remains firmly in the enterprise space, and that is not where Core is targeted. Huckster.
LOL..
Yo calling all flies and PhD pretenders... I asked he posted the ? where are the numbers to back up the claim. It has been a few days..
NO WHERE TO BE FOUND.
The PHD pretender has nothign..
INTEL is not going bankrupt they are going to make billions this year compared to AMD's low double digit millions...
AMD is closer to BK with the huge debt load from the ATI merger.
K9 is going to be late and a dog. Silicon is out and it isn't looking good. If it was we'd know and bencmark numbers would be there... there is NOTHING so there is NOTHING...
PentiumD sales are rocking, Celeron Sales are Rocking and INTEL makes money on them all. Core and Core2 sales are rocking and they make even more money on them.
That is the fact. Study the Q3 financials but the joke is when the Pretender claims utter nonsense as fact..
When AMD sells a Sempron at $50, it makes $10. When Intel sells a Pentium/Celeron at $50, it loses $20.
No, again your wrong, Intels heavily more sophisticated manufacturing enables them to produce chips at a much lower cost than AMD. Nobody knows the exact numbers (well, you made up some yourself, but of course you dont count) but AMDs cost is easily ~50% higher
AMD is almost giving Dell their processors at cost. Dell is screwing them on price and AMD is bending over backward asking for more. Their margins are going to take a huge hit and I'm now convinced that they will have a GAAP loss by Q207. Get the analysis at:
http://sharikou180.blogspot.com
"In any case, AMD slowest horse is faster than 75% of Intel's horses"
So based on this analysis, all of AMD's mobile chips are faster than all of Intel's mobile chips? Or are you only looking at netburst technology (AGAIN)
"In any case, AMD slowest horse is faster than 75% of Intel's horses"
Is this person really that stupid.
It like saying GM's slowest car if faster then 75% of Honda's car. Is that releveant.
Did you know AMD is more expensive then them other 75%. Did you know INTEL makes more money on that 75% then AMD makes on its slowest to fastest combined. PSS did you know that INTELs 25% currently squases all of AMD's chips. Did you know that INTEL will push the Core2 down the stack so soon all of INTEL's will be faster then any AMD chip at any give price point.
Did you know that as a result AMD will have to sale their parts for less ( pss they just cut prices 50% ) Did you know AMD just took out billions of debt. Did you know AMD can't afford its own R&D development having to pay a whore to do it. Did you know AMD can't afford to build a fab in the US without billions in state subsidies.
Did you know AMD is in trouble.
But all you know is that the Pretender and you somehow think INTEL is going BK.. Are you that stupid at work too?
"In any case, AMD slowest horse is faster than 75% of Intel's horses"
Is this person really that stupid.
It like saying GM's slowest car if faster then 75% of Honda's car. Is that releveant.
Did you know AMD is more expensive then them other 75%. Did you know INTEL makes more money on that 75% then AMD makes on its slowest to fastest combined. PSS did you know that INTELs 25% currently squases all of AMD's chips. Did you know that INTEL will push the Core2 down the stack so soon all of INTEL's will be faster then any AMD chip at any give price point.
Did you know that as a result AMD will have to sale their parts for less ( pss they just cut prices 50% ) Did you know AMD just took out billions of debt. Did you know AMD can't afford its own R&D development having to pay a whore to do it. Did you know AMD can't afford to build a fab in the US without billions in state subsidies.
Did you know AMD is in trouble.
But all you know is that the Pretender and you somehow think INTEL is going BK.. Are you that stupid at work too?
actuly they got it at 152 at newegg and is faster than intels 152 doller chip
To all, please modify your notes reg. 64 bit support: "Intel Extended Memory 64 (Intel EM64T)" is supported feature by Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor
Post a Comment
<< Home