Saturday, October 21, 2006

Hexus misses the main point

Hexus, using a bunch of handwaving arguments, called my Intel BK prediction a result of fanboyism. I beg to differ.

First, all empires fall and all companies BK, thus the only question is when Intel will BK. Second, a company BKs when it is unable to pay debt. Thus the Intel BK inquiry is a financial projection which may not be directly correlated to technology. DEC had Alpha, but it pretty much BKed.

Since 85% of Intel's stuff are legacy chips, and since AMD is quickly converting to 100% 65nm, we know any temporary advantage Intel had will be short lived. Even today, AMD's X2 3800 is faster than 90% of Intel's chips. Therefore, what AMD can take is solely contrained by its capacity. AMD knows this and it's in no hurry to introduce K8L desktop chips (but 4x4 will get K8L boost soon). People saw Intel's seasonal 3Q06 as a sign of recovery, but paying attention to the details, you noticed that Intel's server+desktop CPU sales stayed almost flat, Intel's revenue growth came mostly from mobile and chipsets. Thus the switching to mobile was the key factor. AMD was unprepared for such rapid market transition, but nevertheless managed to achieve 50% sequential unit growth in mobile. With the soon to be announced DELL AMD notebooks, expect AMD to grab a big chunk of that market.

Essentially, going forward, AMD will be able to sell all it produces, while Intel will fill the remaining void and sit on a higher and higher pile of legacy chips. Intel has lost the control of its own fate and its financial results will be a function of AMD's capacity. As AMD's production scale rises, its workforce and cost stay pretty much the same, but Intel will have shrinking market share and 10x the workforce and cost. Once AMD cross the 33% market share line, it will quickly approach 40% or even 50%. With ASP sitting around $100, Intel will suffer $1 billion to $2 billion quarterly losses.


Based on Intel's level of liquidity, I re-iterate my projection that it will BK by 2Q08.

64 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou "PhD"

What is legacy? Is that Core2? If it isn't your argument is Bankrupt.

If Legacy is Core2.. then how is INTEL just filling what AMD left.

You are a funny man. Right now AMD fills what INTEL can't supply. Not the other way around. THe only reason any vendor picks AMD right now is to keep INTEL honest. That is AMD's only role in life. TO offer an alternative and prevent INTEL from making more money. To do that AMD has to pursue a bankrupt strategy.

Trying to make money in servers to feed a voracious cash flow appetite that is required for silicon R&D, design R&D can't be done.

INTEL will win in the end. That is the simple fact. To make blanket statements like all empires fall and all companies go BK is just plain stupid. Companies go out of business when they don't evolve to the business enviroment. INTEL has.. a bit slow but it has made radical changes. YOu only see the outside ones.. but they are changing. AMD simply doesn't have the money to compete. Has GE gone BK? Now why is Kodak near BK.. Both very large companies with infinite resources.. in busines terms. One evolved the other didn't...

You name the place and time and I'll lets put a real wager down on your Q2'08 prediction...

Or make a public bet.. if you are so sure. YOu'll have lots of takers..

8:39 AM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, your predictions have been so accurate. You have still failed to explain how you missed Intel Q3 earnings by $.34/share.

9:31 AM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Q208? At this rate they'll never BK:D

9:54 AM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shari,

One of the first steps in getting help is admitting you have a problem. Hexus is just trying to help you get to that point on your own, but psychiatric problems are some of the hardest to break through.

Even in AMD's own CC they stated that even with the fab conversions and ramps they expect to increase their capacity by 35% in 2007. So even giving them credit for 30% of the market right now (a little stretch) a 35% increase would only give them 40% of the market if everything happens extremely well for them. But until K8L, I wouldn't expect much of a shift in performance expectations between the 2 companies.

As regards to notebook sales, I wouldn't be too quick to jump on the 50% number. When your market share is so low to begin with high percentage growth isn't that difficult. AMD has to be seriously concerned with the growth Apple is going to show in the notebook market.

Having conviction in your beliefs can be a great thing up to a point. Sometimes reality does need to set in. If you're so confident, why not take some of these people up on the wagers they are offering?

10:10 AM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Greg said...

Anonymous, your arguments are pretty pointless and, in a way, aren't really arguments as they don't provide real evidence, only opinions and unrelated and undefined examples.

I'm glad Sharikou finally gave this prediction a bit more definition, though I still think Intel has a course have yet to see if any of this happens.

The "all empires fall" is a very good generalization. For example, name a company that has been around since the founding of the US? There aren't any, they've all failed, been bought up, or restructured beyond recognition. Being that this is in the technology sector of the market, we have to realize that the displacement of companies from their position as market leaders will come extremely quickly.

Your Kodak and GE argument (though outdated and inapplicable) actually serves to work against your arguments. AMD took the route of efficiency and destroyed Intel's place in the market (by destroyed, I mean made it impossible for Intel to return to its original position of complete dominance) because Intel didn't become efficient in time to regain its credibility.

"Right now AMD fills what INTEL can't supply." ??? So because Intel is building up an inventory of items it CAN'T sell, that means AMD is only supply the portion of the market that Intel doesn't have the capacity to sell to? Really... I was under the impression that since AMD is selling every chip it produces, and still has companies asking to buy from it, that that would mean Intel only has left, what AMD can't supply. Ya, Core2 is better than x2 or 64, but it's in such low supply that no OEM can count on it as a mainstream chip.

Legacy is anything that has the word pentium in it, which is still 85% of Intel PRODUCTION, not their stock. What they have to sell, is probably somewhere around 95% pentium, and 5% core2, because of how much they have sitting in storage, even excluding the 100M worth of chips they just wrote off, meaning gave up on making a profit on.

10:14 AM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that hexus article is more of journalistic bullshit, from people who r plain pissed off because good blogs call the bluff of sites sustained by ad money

blogs like minimsft.blogspot.com have vindicated the usefulness of their existence

Regular readers of Sharikou's blog would have already noted what I am reiterating below,

# he accurately predicted the time Dell would bring in AMD, long before solid rumors got article spaces in mainstream media. the relationship would expand to desktops and laptops too was noted here then.

# his Paul to Mike calls on inventory predicted problems with Intel channels months before Intel channel stuffing became public knowledge,

# he has always said AMD per chip cost is lower than Intel. Intel's and AMD's recent earnings report confirmed it.

some comments on earlier topics have stated that margins of chipsets, Itaniums, and other products that Intel produces could be effecting their margins,

However none of the other areas that Intel is in has seen fierce price wars similar to Intel-AMD. And drop from earlier 60% to today's 49% for Intel against AMD's 56% to 51%, despite 65nm advantage clearly shows scope for improvements in Intel production process.

one should also note Sharikou's errors

# Sharikou doubted Core2Duo performance, but he turned out to be wrong and Intel did indeed manage to come up with a chip they could showoff

# AMD's 65nm transition has been delayed by atleast a quarter, which Sharikou fails to acknowledge,

Had AMD 65nm production been on schedule, Intels Q3 would have been worse off and maybe inline with Sharikou's expectataion,

Sharikou and many other posters slip to personality attacks, diverting focus from the subject and preventing a healthier that would have otherwise taken place.

Still, overall this blog is interesting read, and kudos to Sharikou, whoever he his, and whatever his motives, for maintaining this blog

11:04 AM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with your estimate ofIntel going bankrupt in 2Q 2008 and also using your figures for losses of 1-2b per quarter is that they have $7.5b in liquid assets currently and so that is, averaging your amounts, 5 quarters all in itself which brings you to 2Q08.

So given this they have to lose $1.5b in the next quarter and considering their current profit is $1.3b and the strong holiday season is coming up and they are making more and more higher selling better processors is this reasonable? A swing of almost 4 billion in fortunes in 1 quarter

You need to redo your sums if you are basing it on a loss of 1-2 billion per quarter.

11:11 AM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

AMD's 65nm transition has been delayed by atleast a quarter, which Sharikou fails to acknowledge,

I agree with you on this. If I were Hector Ruiz, I would be pushing out 65nm Opterons even if yield is only 30%. Also, I would even push out quadcore Opterons even at 90nm--AMD could do Turion 25 watt at 2GHZ, there was no problem doing a quadcore Opteron at 100 watts. AMD folks are too conservative sometimes.

11:23 AM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

have still failed to explain how you missed Intel Q3 earnings by $.34/share.


Intel's earnings is a function of AMD's capacity, it just happens that AMD's capacity expansion lagged by a quarter. However, you will see my predictions come true very soon.

11:25 AM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4th quarter of the game amd fanboys.

Its funny the AMD fanboys think the is in the 4ht quarter with less then 2 minutes and somehow AMD has the ball at the INTEL 10 yard line leading by 10 points.

Intel dominates every segement. It has the introduced the best CPU and rocks in all but the 4 core segement. That represesnts something like 98% of the total volume and 90% of the revenue and 80% of the profits. Being slightly ahead on the last segment is simply NOT enough. Anyone want to debate why AMD can't survive only being ahead in servers...

Lets first look at "AMD took the route of efficiency and destroyed Intel's place in the market (by destroyed, I mean made it impossible for Intel to return to its original position of complete dominance)" Really today who has the most power efficient architecture? INTEL
Who dominates the fastest growing segement, mobile? INTEL. Who has the best products in mobile and desktop across the board of performance performance/price? INTEL. And who dominates the market share. AMD fanboys seem not to be worried about Kenstfield, 45nm process/arhitecture, COre2 across the board. I find their lack of concern in the reality to be funny. It mirrors exactly INTEL's arrogrance during the Netbust days. I'll be the first to admit that Prescott/CedarMill were a huge blunder. But look at the bottom line. Only lost 10% MS, still made > 10 billion. And the bottom line they've recored. WHile somehow AMD fanboys don't seem to be worried. If COre2 was not 40% faster and instead only 20% with the same power as it currently has that would have been a serious death blow. But bottom line it crushed AMD..


SOmehow to talk about since the beginning of US is a really silly permise.. Not even worth the response.

"Legacy is anything that has the word pentium in it, which is still 85% of Intel PRODUCTION, not their stock. What they have to sell, is probably somewhere around 95% pentium, and 5% core2," Not correct. Q4'06-Q1'07 will make that clear.

The actual game sitatuion is less then 2 minutes remaining, INTEL has the ball at the AMD 10 year line and is already up by 10 points. AMD needs 3 scores and perfect fuck up by INTEL.
AMD
1) 65nm ramp is flawless.
2) K8L needs no more then 1 full stepping to go to volume
3) 45nm is pulled in by 6 months and is equal to INTEL. IE AMD needs 45nm ramping in Q12008 instead of Q4 2008

INTEL fuckup.
1) Bungles 45nm development ramp
2) Bungles both the tick and tock designs on 45nm

Guys really whats the likely hood of that?

NONE. Thus AMD will never get more then 30% MS. And thus simply won't have the market share to grow to 50% and sustain the cadence INTEL is doing.

They will always be the distant 2nd pace company. Nothign wrong keep rooting for them. Its like you are die hard cub fans. I pity those silly blind folks.

11:41 AM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretender? Why not a wager?

Put your money where your mouth is!

BK in Q2'08! I'll even give you 10:1 odds and 2 quarter window.

11:43 AM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Dr Blog said...

What did you expect from biggest Intel "Fan Boy" site, Hexus?
There are two events that will happen before year end That will start the "Intel Tower" to plunge to it's ultimate death.
First; 4x4 takes away Intel’s "perceived lead". (I say perceived, after reading product reviews from those who left AMD for Core Dupe'll. They were not impressed!)
Second: the release of Vista Ultimate Edition 64 bit. This is not a 32 bit OS with a modified kernel. (XP x64) That right, a real 64 bit OS. Everyone’s 32 bit crap benchmarks wont prop up Intel anymore. In fact, I predict this event will show everyone that Intel really never had a lead with Core Crap.
This will be the Final Blow where Intel discovers that copying AMD 64 bit arch. and implementing on a 32 bit chip won’t save them in a 64 bit world.
Oh, about those investors,
they have been told Intel’s in the lead and doing so well. If they understood microprocessor architecture, and that not only is Intel three years behind in technology, and after K8L’s release it will be impossible for Intel to pass AMD again ever. I think Paul’s empire would be talking to the judge.
And finally,
The whole purpose of Hexus’s article was to calm a few nervous Intel investors. I hope they read this and understand it while there’s still time.

12:00 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i wish there's a poll showing what percentage of those core2duos is running windows xp 64bit or any 64bit OSes for that matter. I've been using windows xp 64bit for over a year now and I can't look back to winxp pro. winxp 64bit is just awesome imho and it's stable and got some good firewall/antivirus apps that support it. sure i may not be able to run some games or use my printer, but that's just me. seems like all core2duo owners out there are running winxp pro, sad really.

12:39 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, all empires fall and all companies BK, thus the only question is when Intel will BK.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Every ounce (both of them) of your "credibility" is shot by making such ridiculous statements. That sentence is simply untrue, and laughable. Not all companies "BK".

Here's a challeng. When your idiotic theories are proved wrong about the supposed impending BK, how about you just shut up and stop writing this crap? Deal?

12:44 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Core2 is better than x2 or 64, but it's in such low supply that no OEM can count on it as a mainstream chip"

Say what? Is there any shop where you can't get a C2D CPU? I sure don't.

Problem with C2D's is they are considerably more expensive than AMD offerings. For vast majority of people price is one of the most important things for most clients.

"Second: the release of Vista Ultimate Edition 64 bit. This is not a 32 bit OS with a modified kernel. (XP x64) That right, a real 64 bit OS"

If I may ask what exactly makes 64bit Vista any better than 32bit one? Or did they just cripple 32bit one as they have done before with their software running on some specific hardware?

"This will be the Final Blow where Intel discovers that copying AMD 64 bit arch. and implementing on a 32 bit chip won’t save them in a 64 bit world"

For about 10'th time I ask, what makes Intel's version of 64bit CPU any worse than AMD's one? So far, noone has given any solid ansver to that question. I know that C2D disables macro-op fusion in 64bit mode but that is it.


"If they understood microprocessor architecture, and that not only is Intel three years behind in technology"

They are three years behind in interconnection architecture and almost a full year ahead in CPU microarchitecture.

"after K8L’s release it will be impossible for Intel to pass AMD again ever"

Most people thought that until C2D was launched. Never say never, everything is possible. Besides, there are no solid real-world performance numbers about K8L yet.

Let me remind that when there were some first C2D benchmark numbers floating around, most people dropped them and said they are fake. They said not to trust them until there are some real benches from independent sources. After all, it is not that good to compare non-existing CPU's with existing ones.

1:16 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright guys, the good doc has put out the BK prediction date to Q2'08. So regardless how some of you disagree, why don't just wait and see.

I disagree with the doc on the BK too. But do you folks ever see I bitterly dispute? Otherwise, I would just leave the blog; end of story.

So, I have a new question. Has it been established that Intel x86-64bit is not as good as AMD's 64bit? And how much of the incompatibility issue play against Intel.

Believe me, Microsoft has every vest interest to see a stronger AMD and a weaker Intel. The fierce CPU competion lower the hardware price and leave more room for software price. Use your common sense.

-Longan-

2:01 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Legacy is anything that has the word pentium in it, which is still 85% of Intel PRODUCTION, not their stock."

This is just not true - mobile are (for the majority) not Pentium - and this is >30% of Intel's production. Server is already selling at >40% Core 2 (which means >1 quarter ago the production was>4% as wafers take ~1 quarter to move through the fab) and it is ONLY desktop that is currently in the 10-20% Core2 production range.

How many times are people going to apply desktop to all of Intel production. As margins are in server, mobile and dektop in that order why convert desktop first? (Just look at AMD's strategy, which I think is good, K8L will focus on server first, remiaining focus is on mobile, unless of course folks think 4x4 is significant development effort)

On top of that since you are looking at this from financiacl perspective and talking ALL PRODUCTION you are ignoring all of Intel's non-CPU production. I would peg Pentium at about 50% of ALL Intels's production scaling down to <10% over the next 3 quarters (coincidentally just as AMD's 65nm ramps up).

2:50 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"# he has always said AMD per chip cost is lower than Intel. Intel's and AMD's recent earnings report confirmed it."

How did latest earnings prove this? (please don't say gross margin #'s or you will show even more of your ignorance)

2:55 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Intel's earnings is a function of AMD's capacity, it just happens that AMD's capacity expansion lagged by a quarter. However, you will see my predictions come true very soon."

I don't understand you proved your amazing ability to predict AMD's capacity down to <1%. From previous blog:

"Now, go back and read my analysis on AMD's chip output on July 19, 2006. I estimated that AMD's Q3 chip unit to be 118.5% of its Q1 level. Now, look at this table, which shows AMD's Q3 desktop CPU unit (11.815 million) exactly 118.5% of its 1Q06 level (9.965 million). This was an exact match. Did I have AMD inside information? No. It's just a matter of correctly using the available data and construct the right formulation of the problem to be solved."

I don't understand if this is so simple and your Q3 predictions were so dead on solid previously, and your massive profit loss prediction was at the same time, how are you now saying that you were wrong and AMD's capacity is lagging 1 quarter?

If it is lagging a quarter I assume you are now predicting MASSIVE OPERATING LOSSES for Intel in Q4?

Also Q2'08 is seven quarters from now - you have been previously predicting 5-7 in as early as Q1'06; I know you've retreated by 2Q realizing you had no chance but now it seems like it is 9 quarters from your orgininal prediction....

3:03 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There are two events that will happen before year end"

Vista isn't scheduled for release until next year...and business segment isn't going to move heavily toward this anytime soon. And considering the reports on mobile battery life unless you basically turn off all Vista graphics features, I don't see the mobile world moving to this extremely fast either.

The only way MS gets high adoption rate is if they obsoleted all of their existing OS's. Considering they just recently ended support for Win98; that ain't happening soon either.

3:09 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Alright guys, the good doc has put out the BK prediction date to Q2'08. So regardless how some of you disagree, why don't just wait and see."

The reason why we don't wait and see is that he keeps moving it - his previous predictions were for end of 2007 (and as early as Q2/Q3'07).

It's just like his massive operating loss predictions(Q3) and GAAP loss prediction (Q2); he's just going to continue to make up excuses and/or push them out. The latest excuse form missing Q3 loss prediction (AMD capacity lagged production by 1 quarter) is a joke after he has previously claimed to predict Q3 capacity dead on.

Ever wonder why he has refused to define a mathematical construct for market share runrate? Because at end of year after seeing the numbers he will make one up so his 40% prediction comes true... (Oh I really meant 40% increase in market share or soemthing to that effect and choose the right time period...

I could just see it now, in Q4 he will say something like well AMD had 15% market share back in 2002 and now has a 21% share so thus the runrate is 40%... It'll just be a matter of making the data fit the conclusion again.

3:21 PM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

"Now, go back and read my analysis on AMD's chip output on July 19, 2006. I estimated that AMD's Q3 chip unit to be 118.5% of its Q1 level. Now, look at this table, which shows AMD's Q3 desktop CPU unit (11.815 million) exactly 118.5% of its 1Q06 level (9.965 million). This was an exact match. Did I have AMD inside information? No. It's just a matter of correctly using the available data and construct the right formulation of the problem to be solved."

I don't understand if this is so simple and your Q3 predictions were so dead on solid previously, and your massive profit loss prediction was at the same time, how are you now saying that you were wrong and AMD's capacity is lagging 1 quarter?



You have to realize my Intel 3Q06 operating loss projection was made before I made the 18.5% unit growth projection. Though I didn't reverse my earlier projection about Intel's 3Q06 loss, you have to realize that a 18.5% unit growth with AMD is insufficient to cause Intel to suffer operating losses.

3:37 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous bgt said...

Sharikou, keep them coming, like your statements.

3:59 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have to realize my Intel 3Q06 operating loss projection was made before I made the 18.5% unit growth projection. Though I didn't reverse my earlier projection about Intel's 3Q06 loss, you have to realize that a 18.5% unit growth with AMD is insufficient to cause Intel to suffer operating losses"

I can't wait for the excuse in Q4'07 and Q1'08 from the pretender.

4:04 PM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Greg said...

I like how people refer to the core 2 duo as something that has already "crushed" AMD. Last I heard, AMD was still around and was still had orders coming in.

4:44 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are too many Intel fans on here with there silly comments spreading lies with no proof or links to back anything up.

Just wait, just wait and see how roially fucked your dinesy is! K8L will put you all in such a posission. You would do suiside just because you lost the performance crown again and shit all over yourselfs for it.

You won't beable to say conroe is better in anything when K8L comes out. Besides half the people here hardly know what they are talking about like the 1st joker. "Urrr hurr hurr I don't know what legacy means and trys to put on a smart presentation for us with fandisum"

If nobody can provide links, they are only making it up. And we know whos telling the truth here, we can't take intel fans seriously because they put down AMD's production capabilities and forget that AMD is far more superior in fab production because they use much more complex SOI tech then COMS intel crap.

SOI is more expencive and takes twice as long to ramp. COMS is cheap fab crap that is unreliable and cheap. Intel uses 2 fab processes compared to 6 in AMD. Most people like to try and copy something off what somebody else said just to sound smart. When there intellagence is far from being at the level of understanding it. Half the people here who are smart are confuseing the other half and just making them respond ilogically.

Most intel fans just don't know shit about anything AMD and just say crap about it they heard some other fan say that was smarter then them and over exagerate it.

Maybe the PHD can refresh us in how much better AMD's fab production is with links? I'm done giving a crap about spreading links for the 50th time about facts. Intel doesn't listen so theres no point. They will just beleave in there magically little dreams. But people smart enough that can live with the facts will see the true light.

Just because a cpu is faster by 10 or 15% doesn't make it superiorly built then the other you fools.

4:48 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have to realize my Intel 3Q06 operating loss projection was made before I made the 18.5% unit growth projection. Though I didn't reverse my earlier projection about Intel's 3Q06 loss, you have to realize that a 18.5% unit growth with AMD is insufficient to cause Intel to suffer operating losses."

You continued to re-iterate (see#4 below where you actually used the words "I reiterate my projection" of your massive operating loss projection AFTER your 18.5% capacity anlysis:

1. Blog on 9/27:; called for MASSIVE OPERATING LOSSES IN THE COMING QUARTERS .

2. Blog on 9/1/06: "As a result, I projected operating losses for Intel from 3Q06 onward, leading to eventual BK around 4Q07 to 2Q08 timeframe."

3. Comments in 7/30 Blog: "So you will see Intel selling less units and drasticlly lower prices--leading to massive operating losses and BK in 5 to 7 Qs."

4. Pice de resistance - Blog on 7/27: "I reiterate my projection that Intel will post operating loss starting 3Q06, and BK in five to seven quarters." (emphasis on REITERATE).

These are just a few examples of repeating your prediction AFTER your capacity analysis (in some cases months later). In light of this what is now you're excuse for being wrong on the operating loss prediction?

Oh and for the record are you predicting massive operating losses for Intel in Q4'06 now that AMD has an additional quarter to ramp up capacity?

5:07 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have to realize my Intel 3Q06 operating loss projection was made before I made the 18.5% unit growth projection. Though I didn't reverse my earlier projection about Intel's 3Q06 loss, you have to realize that a 18.5% unit growth with AMD is insufficient to cause Intel to suffer operating losses."


8/09/06 blog (Intel Yard Sale) by Sharikou: "The result will be massive operating losses from 3Q06 onward. BK time is 5 to 7 quarters."

This is 2 DAYS after your 18.5% capacity analysis, and the very next blog you wrote!

Got lay off the drugs - it's clearly impacting your short term memory if you couldn't remmber your own elegant capcity analysis 2 days after you made it....

Rather odd that you stood by your operating loss prediction after you did the capacity analysis then...

5:20 PM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Dr Blog said...

Anonymous said...
"There are two events that will happen before year end"

Vista isn't scheduled for release until next year...and business segment isn't going to move…..

Thanks for correcting me on this "Anonymous" My partner had just emailed me from Seattle announcing Vistas release next week. I didn't realize it was to Business only. How bass-akwards! B2B is the smallest market for Vista. Indeed, Microsoft is “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas” this year!

Ok, so it will happen by March 07, never the less it will happen! So, go ahead, eat a cookie, soon you’ll feel right as rain.
__________________________________
Next I read;
“”For about 10'th time I ask, what makes Intel's version of 64bit CPU any worse than AMD's one? So far, noone has given any solid ansver to that question. I know that C2D disables macro-op fusion in 64bit mode but that is it.”

Ok, it’s one more poster who hasn’t a clue about spelling. apart from that though, Intel doesn’t have a true 64 bit CPU, just a 32 bit one with 64 bit (AMD) extentions

Have you ever read anything on this site other than your posts? Here’s a dozen pages on AMD’s incredible superior lead in technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T It’s listed under “AMD Architecture”, see highlight “Intel Did A Bad Job”

80% of this site is about why AMD64 ROCKS and Intel Sucks. All from competent outside resources. Sharikou has become the IT “Drudge Report” of the Microprocessor world. I recently read that AMD is the most searched word in the IT sector. Pages over 30 days old are getting over 10,000 hits a day.

Hexus attack confirms this.

One more thing,
Sharikou is overly cautious with his predictions of Intel’s demise. last July I predicted AMD would bring the mighty Intel to their knees by July 06. Everyone laughed at me. There not laughing now! (July Intel fired 10,000 employees and 1,000 managers, sold two companies, remember, I suggest everyone put some money in the bank for the big garage sale coming in July 07. After all, don’t the kids need computers too??

The Doctor

7:35 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Selling 1 clue. $0.02 OBO.

8:19 PM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Markus said...

Selling 1 clue. $0.02 OBO.

Can I think about it?

10:54 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou....I suggest you get your head fixed up....You are such a AMD fanboy & that clouded your so call "analysis". I think AMD is taking a higher risk here. They are trying to buy ATI using a huge debt. If their market share doesn't grow to 30% as what they want they will be in trouble. How the heck they are going to pay for their ATI purchase. So go & fix your ehad & stop writing rot in your blog:(

10:59 PM, October 21, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

These are just a few examples of repeating your prediction AFTER your capacity analysis (in some cases months later). In light of this what is now you're excuse for being wrong on the operating loss prediction?


In all honesty, I should have revised my Intel operating loss projection in light of my analysis of AMD capacity growth in 3Q06. But I did not take the oppurtunity to review my previous projections de novo at that point. I did lay the basis for performing such projections: once Intel's revenue falls below $7b, it starts to post operating losses. For that to happen, AMD will have to take about 33% market share.

Also, please keep in mind that my Intel BK projection is based on the assumption that Intel will keep piling up inventory and keeping slashing prices. Intel may ramp down and hike prices as I originally suggested, such moves may delay Intel's BK by 2 to 3 quarters.

11:00 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wahahahat!!!! So are you saying that Intel could actually now go BK in 2009. Why not just admit defeat and say that you don't know when or if Intel will go BK. Heck I bet that even if Intel hadn't released the Core 2 that they will still not go BK. This BK crap is a little too extreme...hmmmm, now that I think about it, oh snap, I get it. Publicity!! It did get you an article in Hexus...next Toms, and then Anand. Heck forget about that little stuff, how about the G4 channel or whatever geeks watch at late night....you are going to be BIG my man

11:18 PM, October 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see that you have finally come to the realization that business, people, decisions etc. are dynamic.

"If they do this, then that, and that would push out BK."

Duh.

Your long term predictions are just plain stupid. Definately not something one would expect out of a truly educated individual.

5:56 AM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel very good product :
Destop/Mobile Core 2 (superyonah V2)

Intel good product :
Xeon "Woodcrest" DP

Intel bad product :
NetBurst


AMD great product :
Opteron

AMD good product :
Desktop Athlon64/X2
Mobile Turion64/X2

AMD bad product :
Nothing


Intel = inexorable decline

6:13 AM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some anonymous said:
"Just wait, just wait and see how roially fucked your dinesy is! K8L will put you all in such a posission."
"You won't beable to say conroe is better in anything when K8L comes out."
"If nobody can provide links, they are only making it up"

Exactly! Without links, you are just making all that up.

"Just because a cpu is faster by 10 or 15% doesn't make it superiorly built then the other you fools."

It just means that one company can create CPU's that are faster than the other one. End user only cares about price and performance, they don't care who can do CPU's more efficiently.


"Intel doesn’t have a true 64 bit CPU, just a 32 bit one with 64 bit (AMD) extentions"

I asked what made it any worse but seems to me you don't know the answer. Neither do I and thats why I asked. If you really kow the answer then could you also say what makes CPU a real 64bit one. It would be the same as to say Intel's implementation of x86 is worse/better than AMD's since its CPU's are worse/better at running 32bit x86 code.

I have personally tried AMD and Intel running in 64bit Linux and saw very similar performance number increases and decreases. I have no ideas where does it come from that EM64T is any worse than AMD64.

They both have similar speedups and slowdowns going from 32 to 64bit. Only difference might be when due to 64bit stuff needing more memory bandwidth than 32bit, Intel's smaller memory thtroughput may limit performance in some situations. Though there are not many apps where you need >5GB/s bandwidth.

7:35 AM, October 22, 2006  
Blogger 180 Sharikou said...

Sharikou - pay careful attention to the earnings. Intel had record shipments in server. It is desktop where they are shrinking. Go back and listen to the call again.

http://sharikou180.blogspot.com
(A more balanced POV)

7:40 AM, October 22, 2006  
Blogger Jeach! said...

Congratulations Sharikou!

Not for your blogs content, but for the 'vibe' you have created. Recently you have been referenced from a few other sites and now Hexus!

I guess I could say you have somewhat the same success as Howard Stern... those who like you and you content come and read a few times a week and those who hate you and your content come and visit a few times a day. In my opinion that is a benchmark of success, regardless of content.

As for Hexus:

1. If there's one thing about the Internet that I hate, it's weblogs.
2. But if I had to, I'd shoot down all weblogs, just to be on the safe side.

I think that Hexus and many others out there a jealous because in our day and age a few infividuals with an opinion can generate as much trafic to their link as Hexus does.

How can a site such as Hexus be taken serious when they correlate share performance with success? Wasn't Nortel's shares at $120? Wasn't Enron one of the top world companies acording to its market value (shares * share price)?

And then they have the odacity to quote Intel as proof they are healthy? Oh my god, what a serious idot! Hey Hexus, try quoting Worldcom and Enron in your next article, they proclaim fair-play too!

Hey Hexus, havn't those same Intel execs been quoted saying that FSB is the way to go? Only to change their minds later. Havn't they said that we should expect 10GHz (and higher) processors in the near future?

Obviously Hexus your were right about one thing! [...] I'm an expert in hardware, not a financial analyst; I'm not going to pretend to be something I'm not.

Still, I'll leave you with this fairly simple thought: If Intel was in any serious danger, shouldn't shareholders have been running scared in their masses by now?


You see that last comment is proof that most of your readers Sharikou (and Hexus) don't really know a single thing about finance and the stock market.

8:54 AM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"There are too many Intel fans on here with there silly comments spreading lies with no proof or links to back anything up.

... K8L will put you all in such a posission. You would do suiside just because you lost the performance crown again and shit all over yourselfs for it."

It's good to see you do the same...

Do you have a link about K8L performance...

"Just because a cpu is faster by 10 or 15% doesn't make it superiorly built then the other you fools."

That 10-15% was in gaming, it was more like 30% in most other things except memory bandwidth.

Thanks for coming out.

9:32 AM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

To be added to my comment above...

Anonymous said...

"...superiorly built then the other you fools."

You are right about that.

Sorry.

9:36 AM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assumptions, Asumptions, Asumptions.

When you got your PhD Pretender did you based them on assumptions are facts?

Your assumptions about INTEL and AMD are both flawed.

As a strategist you would assume best case INTEL and worst case situation for AMD, vice versa and most likely to determine the real situation.

Since you have no facts nor insideer knoweledge all your assumptions and predictions based on them are FLAWED... thus the conclusions you come to are WRONG.

BK and INTEL cpu causing fires are fine examples of the Pretenders assumptions gone wrong.

11:21 AM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretender said: "In all honesty, I should have revised my Intel operating loss projection in light of my analysis of AMD capacity growth in 3Q06. But I did not take the oppurtunity to review my previous projections de novo at that point. I did lay the basis for performing such projections: once Intel's revenue falls below $7b, it starts to post operating losses. For that to happen, AMD will have to take about 33% market share.

Also, please keep in mind that my Intel BK projection is based on the assumption that Intel will keep piling up inventory and keeping slashing prices. Intel may ramp down and hike prices as I originally suggested, such moves may delay Intel's BK by 2 to 3 quarters."

I sense an undignified retraction!

12:05 PM, October 22, 2006  
Blogger Mikolaj said...

Business Week says here that Intel LOST 10% of the marketshare during last 12 months.
AMD will produce/produced 44milion CPUs in 2006 and 55m in 2007.

Hexus should dream more about Intel supremacy. It helps ;)

12:33 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2163452/intel-holds-marginal-lead-amd
"Intel has succeeded in maintaining its lead in the retail computer and notebook market over rival AMD, according to new data from Current Analysis.

The analyst firm put Intel's July market share at 53 per cent, up slightly from last month's 51 per cent.

Preliminary data for August indicates that Intel improved its lead to 58 per cent. The figure does not include online sales and units sold to enterprises."

12:59 PM, October 22, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Not for your blogs content, but for the 'vibe' you have created. Recently you have been referenced from a few other sites and now Hexus!


What da heck is Hexus? A cheesy web site run by a bunch of kids with a BS degree or a high school diploma. Judging from the stuff they wrote, I have to say they like most other hardware vendors sites, lack the IQ to make any meaningful critical analysis of any strategic matter.

The whole Hexus piece is replete with personal opinions of another Joe Blow. There was nothing intellectual.

I referenced the Hexus piece because I found it had a modicum of usefulness to our readers -- at least it was willing to consider the possibility of Intel BK.

12:59 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous PENIX said...

Intel's stock is rising because they have successfully overhyped and mislead the public into believing that the Core2 platform is a new and innovative product. The reality is that the Core2 is only a slight improvement over the P4 disaster.

Intel has spent the last few years building their industry around the P4 and cannot simply drop support for it. 85% of their product is, and will continue to be, P4 chips. Because of this, AMD will take Intel's marketshare and Intel will continue to take massive quarterly losses.

Intel has dug themselves a very deep hole with the P4. The Core2 is, simply put, not good enough to get them out.

1:09 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD fanboys can't even take the truth and twist it worth a damm.

"Business Week says here that Intel LOST 10% of the marketshare during last 12 months.
AMD will produce/produced 44milion CPUs in 2006 and 55m in 2007."

That is correct 2005-2006 was about as bad as it can get for INTEL. Crappy architecture, horrible benchmarks. ONly made 2 billion a quarter in 2005 and 50% of that in 2006.. damm 1 billion profit a quarter even after paying for 45nm R&D and construction of 2 ( TWO ) 45nm factories.... what a horrible situation there 1 billion profit, 4 300mm 65nm factories and 3 45nm factories coming.

Oh.. and Business weeks projects AMD having 55 million in 2007. That is right in line with having < 25% of the CPU market share... Opps how does that math work out ... Total 2007 CPU market will probably in in excess of 250 million if the economy goes good. Worst case its 200 million.

I guess Business weeks doesn't see AMD abvoe 25% and more likely 20%. Not enough there little boys.

1:27 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous The Sheepshagger said...

Seriously... in case you missed the comment in previous posts or failed to approve them, please comment on the following:

The reason that AMD is going to reach cross-over to 65nm faster while ramping Fab36 is because they announced in their Q306 analysts call that during in Q207 that they're are going to be reducing wafer starts in Fab30 to the tune of 10k wafers less per quarter until the conversion to 65nm is completed in Q208. At that time, Fab30 will be renamed Fab38. During this transition, Fab30 will dip to 40% capacity.

Now read this clarity and comprehension: A reduction of 10k-12k starts per quarter pans out to 40k-48k fewer wafers started per year. This clearly throws the proverbial wrench in Sharikou's prediction that AMD will exit this year with 30% and next year with 40% because AMD will not have the capacity to do so based on factory availability, wafer starts, larger die sizes for their quad-core, normalized yield losses seen in transitions from technology to technology (i.e.: 90nm - 65nm).

In fact, it is my belief that AMD's drop in stock price this past week isn't the result of bad news for the previous quarter. On the contrary, I firmly believe that the drop has to do with AMD's coming quarters and inability to meet demand due to capacity constraint. From the transcripts of the analyst call it clearly sounded that the reduced wafer starts of that scale caught the analysts by surprise.

Read the transcrips for yourself. It is hard to counter this point when it came from Dirk Meyer (AMD COO) at the analysts call with Hector Ruiz (AMD CEO) sitting beside him.

1:33 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Intel's stock is rising because they have successfully overhyped and mislead the public into believing that the Core2 platform is a new and innovative product. The reality is that the Core2 is only a slight improvement over the P4 disaster."
There are a lot of members (@ OCforums.com for example) that are now saying they regret leaving AMD and now are selling their 2-3months old Conroe rigs for comeback to AMD (AM2 or 4x4) again. They say they miss AMD's overclocking excitement and the Intel’s is too boring, nothing to it really. Practically not Impressed by Con-roe and a lot complain about issues w/ motherboards, memory compatibility, heat (Idle and load) and as Mr. Sharikou has said, slow respond time and lots of freezing during games. I believe the enormous amount of advertizing and paid for good reviews (Hexus for example), prevented Intel’s stock from crashing before and right after the Q3 CC. Next Quarter will be very rough for Intel and I disagree w/ Mr. Sharikou on the date of BK. I believe within the next 2-3 Q Intel's stock will crash. It only takes 25% drop to cause a stock to crash because of margin calls. When the margins are near call, the big holders are quick to dump theirs before you causing a chain reaction downward @ a steep grade. Before you know it in less than 24 hrs a $20 stock value will drop to below $5 and kicked out of NASDAQ. The Class Lawyers are chomping their licks getting ready for the largest class action suit in the history of stock market. Tick tack, tick tack, oh that sound of clock is so unbearable for Hexus and Intel Fanboys.

2:57 PM, October 22, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I sense an undignified retraction!


You should realize my Intel BK projection timing was very conservative. It can happen very quickly, as Intel only has $4 billion net liqudity left. So, even though Intel's loss quarters are delayed by a 1 quarter or two. The 2Q08 BK time is still well within reasonable paramters.

3:26 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the boring attempts to spread FUD. Ooh, Conroe really is slow and hangs! Oooh, people want to go back to AMD! Ooooh, it runs hot! Oooooh, it's slow at 64-bit and is just a hack!

It's the height of ridiculousness, and it's painfully, embarassingly transparent. No matter what "guerilla marketing" you attempt, everybody knows Core 2 Duo is pwning AMD in every category.

Furthermore, AMD's stock price is going from bad to worse, and I absolutely relish it. Your idiotic little tactics aren't going to work on anybody, and your AMD stock will soon be unworthy for use as even toilet paper.

7:22 PM, October 22, 2006  
Blogger Jeach! said...

No matter what "guerilla marketing" you attempt, everybody knows Core 2 Duo is pwning AMD in every category.

Right... those benchmarks where one core is disabled... those benchmarks where the dataset is limited to cache size, and those benchmarks which have been purposely optimized for Intel processors, yaddy, yaddy, yadda!

Ok, you are right, THOSE benchmarks, really do beat the Athlon 64 processor by 30%. I admit it!

But what about the real-world use?

What about that secretary and her Internet and firewall and Office and bloated Windows and MSN, etc. etc.

What about the real world small-range corporate servers running linux and using MySQL databases on Tomcat and JBoss spewing millions of transactions and thousands of page views per second?

In those real world scenarios, the Conroe only comes in at 5% to 10% gain over Athlon MAX!
And I'm not going to pretend that the Anthlon 64 is NOT beat... but by more then 10% is just plain stupidity!

So now, allow me to congratulate all of you Intel fans for your beautifully little new Conroe architecture which can beat the 3 year old Athlon 64 architecture by 10%... CONGRATULATIONS!

9:59 PM, October 22, 2006  
Blogger Jeach! said...

Its funny how I thought that Intel's lack of inovation, leadership and vision was just a result of bad managment within the last decade or so.

But as it turns out, I was wrong!

Last weekend I decided to watch one of my favorite 'geek' documentaries Triumph of the Nerds: The Rise of Accidental Empires. But the difference this time around was how I was attentive to various 'documented' facts about Intel.

One of particular importance was the fact that Intel didn't want to get into the personal computing business because they didn't think that was the future for their product. They wanted to stick to calculators!!!

The reason they were forced into that market was because the Altair (the first personal computer) used their chips... and an industry was born.

But anyway, I just thought that maybe someone should email the Intel engineers to let them know that they aren't building their processors for caluculators anymore!!!

10:15 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It can happen very quickly, as Intel only has $4 billion net liqudity left."

Out of curiosity what is AMD's net liquidity?

11:30 PM, October 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What about that secretary and her Internet and firewall and Office and bloated Windows and MSN, etc. etc."

Compared to single-core 2Ghz K8 my 3.1GHz C2D compiles stuff roughly 4x faster, both run in 64bit. Regular desktop apps I use don't need that much CPU power and both of those are fast enough to not have noticeable speed difference. Of course they both have similar speed HDD's too so the slowest link is about the same speed.


"So now, allow me to congratulate all of
you Intel fans for your beautifully little new Conroe architecture which can beat the 3 year old Athlon 64 architecture by 10%... CONGRATULATIONS!"

Well, before that K8, released in September '03, was beating P4, released in November '00. Was that comparison fair? Also, wasn't C2D just a simple upgrade to P3, released in February '99?

12:44 AM, October 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"It can happen very quickly, as Intel only has $4 billion net liqudity left."

Out of curiosity what is AMD's net liquidity?


don't tell me you really believe his calculation of the $4B stuff ... not to jude other parameter, but basically he deducted the 4B of inventory asset. Or even he said the inventory will be 0 blablabla, but he deducts a number which was never added.

2:42 AM, October 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Intel FANATIC boys must stop posting like Intel:
- only as 65nm processors
- only as Core 2 processors
- is better than Intel it self
- no longer as P4 and 90nm processors

2. If Intel is that good, seams to go even better, why are they firing people and selling divisions of the company?
Do they know something we don’t?
They don’t believe in them selves?

They have all read the sharikou blog and are scared?

6:25 AM, October 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"don't tell me you really believe his calculation of the $4B stuff ... not to jude other parameter, but basically he deducted the 4B of inventory asset. Or even he said the inventory will be 0 blablabla, but he deducts a number which was never added."

No I don't believe it - I just want him to use the same goofy calculation on AMD...and from that deduct how quickly AMD will BK.

This can only mean the only remaining player will be......Via! :)

10:34 AM, October 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"BK and INTEL cpu causing fires are fine examples of the Pretenders assumptions gone wrong."

What?!?

You mean the fires were not Silicon vaporizing? (each core independently - resulting in 32 explosions?)

Next thing you know you'll be trying to convince us that Intel did not suffer massive Q3 operating losses!

10:41 AM, October 23, 2006  
Blogger Jeach! said...

don't tell me you really believe his calculation of the $4B stuff ... not to jude other parameter, but basically he deducted the 4B of inventory asset. Or even he said the inventory will be 0 blablabla, but he deducts a number which was never added.

I think you should go back to your Accounting 101 books!

Now I don't know exactly why Sharikou only uses the 'current assets and curent liabilities' for his calculation, but either way you are wrong.

Intels inventories (which consists of millions of Pentium 4 processors) ARE included in Intel's books. The idea is that because Sharikou (and I too) believe Intel won't get to sell them, they will eventually have to write them off. Makes total sense if you support this theory (and alot of people do).

See Intel's Balance Sheet. Look at 3 lines above Total Current Assets. What do you think that inventory is? Pencils?

Anyway, here are the details:

#1 is equity with inventory
#2 is equity without inventory

Current Equity 1 = $ 8.333B
Current Equity 2 = $ 4.001B
Net Equity = $ 34.796B

-> 12.44% of equity is inventory

That means that if Intel was to sell EVERYTHING to liquidate, it would raise 34.796 billion. If you devide that by the 5.767 billion outstanding shares then each shareholder would receive $6.033/share.

Current Intel share price is $21.45

That means that people are paying 3.555 times more per share than what the company is really worth.

And now for AMD:

Current Equity 1 = $ 2.151B
Current Equity 2 = $ 1.746B
Net Equity = $ 4.852B

-> 8.34% of equity is inventory

That means that if AMD was to sell EVERYTHING to liquidate, it would raise 4.852 billion. If you devide that by the 485 million outstanding shares then each shareholder would receive $10.004/share.

Current AMD share price is $20.24

That means that people are paying 2.023 times more per share than what the company is really worth.

Final result is that Intel is over-valued by 43% on a true 'asset-value' analysis.

If Sharikou is right about Intel not getting to sell inventory then these numbers get even worst for Intel.

6:03 PM, October 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeach...

Interesting analysis - what does the debt AMD will be taking on from the ATI acquisition do to the #'s?

12:36 AM, October 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All companies BK"

So true! But AMD will go first

7:20 AM, October 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All companies BK"

"So true! But AMD will go first"

Bahahahahah!!! This crap makes me LOLLERSKATE and ROFLCOPTER everytime I hear it! AMD was in a far WORSE position finacially back in 2002(read: K7 era for the uniformed) AND without all the connections and deals with industry partners they have now. (Dell, HP, IBM, Sun, ATI, need I go on?) Unlike Intel, AMD knows how to survive with razor thin budgets, stay lean as a company and even survive in the red for several quarters. Still Intel fanboys think AMD will bankrupt before Intel! Thats right, keep on dreaming! If Sharikou's projection of Intel's BK happens it will be the Intel fanboys who will be in for a rude awakening.(and Intel's weaking monoply in the semi-conductor industry will forever be destroyed, yippie!)

8:02 AM, October 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home