Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
See this report. AMD says DELL's shipment is mostly in servers... It makes a lot of sense. Intel did a price war on desktop, but used mobile to book profits. AMD is smart, it cut desktop prices deeply, but switched production to mobile to get the money.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 11/09/2006 07:26:00 AM
39 Comments:
Even after nearly $500 million worth of recalled sony batteries you are still standing behind this improbable theory? You, sir, are simply incredible.
"Only idiots will buy a 32 bit exploding Core Duo.
Turion 64 X2 is the way to go."
None of those are true 64 bit nor do a cpu "explode".
Did intel blow up your house with one of those exploding c2d`s you keep talking about ?
Getting the feeling this is just another PR stunt on your end to draw attention to your blog
Who wants crappy AMD mobile processors that are slower and use more power?
Surprise-Surprise
In this market share chess match AMD always seems to have Intel at CHECK MATE. Knowing what your enemy is thinking was in the book “the ART of WAR”.
That's why I am buying a Notebook with AMD Turion X2 TL60 from HP or DELL. Which ever will give it cheaper and whenever it will available at DELL(TL 60).
Hey attention seeking BS whore.
Speaking of idiots...
Only idiots will buy a 32 bit exploding Core Duo
Come on mate, drop the ficticious line about exploding Core Duo's. There has never been an exploding CPU.
The Sony battery problem has been so widely admitted now your argument just doesn't hold water & puts you in a bad light.
That and the fact a cpu isn't a readily combustible item unlike a battery which is purely to hold charge.
Stick to your other strengths.
Stick to your other strengths.
Like what? BSing? LOL
Danny, I believe sharikou's previous claims were that the Core2Duo's were sucking so much power that the batteries couldn't take it. And sony's batteries had a failover switch to prevent surges of power sucked from the battery (by the C2D), which failed.
Therefore, the batteries melted...
Now, I think I have clarified it again...
Or Maybe The Inquirer clarified it when they showed how many reported AMD cases there were with exploding sony batteries... ZERO...
Looks Plausable to me!
No one will buy AMD Turion processors. The benchmarks have proven that Intel Core 2 Duo are FASTER and consume LESS POWER. Check and mate.
Turion??? I mean WTF.. Even AMD is embaressed by such a processor that they decided to redesign the next mobile chip from the grounds up.
If you want lower battery life and lower performace, be my guest idiot!
No one will buy AMD Turion processors. The benchmarks have proven that Intel Core 2 Duo are FASTER and consume LESS POWER. Check and mate.
The benchmarks have also been proven to be skewed in favour of the Core Duo. So get lost.
If you want lower battery life and lower performace, be my guest idiot!
If you want cooked legs or testicles, be my guest! No, explosions do not count. I do, however, contest the lower battery life part. When a proper comparison is done, let me know.
Still regardless of what you intel fanboys say, all the notebook fires were on intel machines.
4 minutes of longer battery life wont help you if your on fire.
I dont blame people for staying away from the sony/intel problems.
I really dont think people will soon forget those flaming intel/sony laptops.
Historically AMD laptops have been reliable and safe, this decision is a no brainer for the typical end user.
And if you know about intels other platform problems such as bad graphics you can see why AMD notebooks are selling so well.
A rodent wrote "Hey attention seeking BS whore."
You sound like one of them sewer rats that infest the forumz on TOMSGUTTERWARE site.
And if you do't like this blog then get the F**k out and stay out.
IDIOT.
Same goes for the stinky other rats like you.
STUPIDS.
Danny, I believe sharikou's previous claims were that the Core2Duo's were sucking so much power that the batteries couldn't take it. And sony's batteries had a failover switch to prevent surges of power sucked from the battery (by the C2D), which failed.
unless you try to account for the fact that
1. the core and core 2 take less power than turions
2. many of these laptops exploded while turned off.
what's AMD's notebook share? nil? the total number of actual exploding batteries was less than 10. AMD just never got any due to the tiny market share.
Having the same price and model (from HP/Compaq V3000 series), the demand ratio of Turion X2 to Centrino is 100:1.
I can't say with C2D based notebook because most of it are in different price range. Plus it is rare to find a C2D notebook with a matching GPU. Most brand offerings with top-end GPU seems to be in Centrino.
Danny, I believe sharikou's previous claims were that the Core2Duo's were sucking so much power that the batteries couldn't take it. And sony's batteries had a failover switch to prevent surges of power sucked from the battery (by the C2D), which failed.
What about all the notebooks that used desktop Prescotts, which sucked up 2-3 times more power than any Core processors? By this logic, we should have seen some truly horrendous accidents caused by Prescott-equipped laptops over the years, but we never have done!
AMD is an Idiot.
Intel switched its focus to mobile more than 2 years back realizing that's where the growth is.
AMD has always been behind Intel in the game. Just as in this case.
At the moment, OEMs are controlling AMD's destiny more than AMD itself. I sincerely hope AMD does not squander away the new markets ATI deal has opened up for it and will find some money from somewhere to boost R&D.
KingRichard said...
Danny, I believe sharikou's previous claims were that the Core2Duo's were sucking so much power that the batteries couldn't take it. And Sony's batteries had a failover switch to prevent surges of power sucked from the battery (by the C2D), which failed. Therefore, the batteries melted...
Now, I think I have clarified it again...
Or Maybe The Inquirer clarified it when they showed how many reported AMD cases there were with exploding sony batteries... ZERO...
Looks Plausable to me!
I’m sure it is plausible because (1) the CPU is the only component in a laptop that draws power and (2) all components in an AMD and an Intel laptop are all the same. /end sarcasm
While the CPU maybe one thing that is different between the exploded laptop and those that didn’t, there are several other different components that draw power most specifically the power MOSFETS that distribute the load. Even if the CPU draws the maximum power it can draw, which is at worst case, equivalent to a short circuit, the power MOSFETs are first to go and would cut it of from the battery.
You and Sharikou's assumptions are ridiculous that it’s equivalent to telling the world that a faulty light bulb caused the Electric Power Plant to explode. Obviously circuit design, specifically power distribution is a concept that eludes you.
Laptops have outsold desktops for the last 3-1/2 years, and just NOW AMD decides to shift production?
Wow, there's some great management for you.
Danny, I believe sharikou's previous claims were that the Core2Duo's were sucking so much power that the batteries couldn't take it. And sony's batteries had a failover switch to prevent surges of power sucked from the battery (by the C2D), which failed.
Therefore, the batteries melted...
Now, I think I have clarified it again...
Or Maybe The Inquirer clarified it when they showed how many reported AMD cases there were with exploding sony batteries... ZERO...
Looks Plausable to me!
It looks plausible to you because you're a feable-minded moron.
There were no AMD cases because it's a sporadic issue and there are like, what, 20 AMD laptops out there in the world? Nobody wants them. If you have a 1/100000 chance of blowing up and there are only 20 AMD laptops, not much chance of it, now is there rocket surgeon?
If I didn't browse to this page myself, I would swear there was some kind of "do not enter if IQ over 85" filter on this Blog. Crikey, but some of you people are just idiots.
You and Sharikou's assumptions are ridiculous that it’s equivalent to telling the world that a faulty light bulb caused the Electric Power Plant to explode.
Consider the situation where the light bulb consumes 80% of the power of the power plant...
"what's AMD's notebook share? nil? the total number of actual exploding batteries was less than 10. AMD just never got any due to the tiny market share. "
Their mobile CPU grew 50%+... I'd say that's pretty good. :)
The benchmarks have also been proven to be skewed in favour of the Core Duo. So get lost.
How was this done!? Please tell me, I really, really want to know! Your excuse will probably be "an Intel biased site did those benchmarks"! Here's a list thus far of sites that the AMD fanboys have accused of being Intel biased (or even being paid by Intel!)
-TomsHardware
-Anandtech
-Hexus.net
-HotHardware
-Bjorn3d
-HardOCP
Are there any others? Hahah! If this were true Intel would have certainly swayed a nice majority of the hardware sites!
It looks plausible to you because you're a feable-minded moron.
There were no AMD cases because it's a sporadic issue and there are like, what, 20 AMD laptops out there in the world?
But a guy that says that there are 20 AMD laptops in the all world is not a moron, right?
"Laptops have outsold desktops for the last 3-1/2 years, and just NOW AMD decides to shift production?"
Because AMD was previously shifting production to server, and got a good chunk of that market. What would you expect now that it is shifting production to mobile?
Everyone I know who owned a Turion64 X2 loves it. It's cheaper and faster with nVidia/ATi chipset (vs. Intel's IGP). It's more power efficient after AMD made possible to clock down the internal memory controller.
Intel has to resort to heavy marketing and paid review (which is totally skewed and without merit of consideration) to suppress T64 X2, but just look at AMD's >50% mobile growth and you know Intel didn't succeed with its tactics: not everyone is as stupid as a Intel fanboy.
Edward said...
"...What would you expect now that it is shifting production to mobile?"
Shouldn't the real question be did they have anything prior to Turion X2 that could compete against Intel in the notebook segment?
-------------------------------------
"...to suppress T64 X2, but just look at AMD's >50% mobile growth and you know Intel didn't succeed with its tactics..."
In regards to the 50%, it is always easier for a small company to make larger growth, but at the same time it is very misleading.
Example : Say the mobile segment is 40 million processors, Intel controled 87% totaling 34.8 Million processors.
AMD controled 13% or 5.2 Million, increase that by 50% while including the 25% growth and you get 7.8 Million and you get 16% of the market.
50 Million (125%) - AMD's 7.8 Million (16%)= Intel's 42.2 Million or Intel 84%.
Does that put it in perspective for you, and why the 50% makes it seem larger than it really is?
Only a fag would buy an exploding c2d laptop... just look at Apple - QED.
In regards to the 50%, it is always easier for a small company to make larger growth, but at the same time it is very misleading.
Example : Say the mobile segment is 40 million processors, Intel controled 87% totaling 34.8 Million processors.
AMD controled 13% or 5.2 Million, increase that by 50% while including the 25% growth and you get 7.8 Million and you get 16% of the market.
50 Million (125%) - AMD's 7.8 Million (16%)= Intel's 42.2 Million or Intel 84%.
Does that put it in perspective for you, and why the 50% makes it seem larger than it really is?
You f*cking loser - what a stupid argument. Like 50% growth doesn't matter. FFF
Damn right.
Wow we have some angry people here today.
First off I am not saying that 50% growth is insignificant, but when you use it to try and show the huge gains AMD is making (like Edward was saying) on Intel it is not that big.
And secondly I am not trying to say anything negative about AMD, but to try and put it in perspective.
"You f*cking loser - what a stupid argument. Like 50% growth doesn't matter. FFF"
No, it doesn't matter to him, because he has arithmetics but no logic. In other words, he's probably passed grade school, but never (should've) made through college.
50% growth one quarter is significant when the segment-wide growth is only 25%, no matter how you look at it.
Intel has done everything it can to drive AMD out of the mobile segment; it purchased magazine ads and website reviews like no tomorrow, but still AMD's mobile sales, as I had predicted, experienced unprecedented growth after Turion 64 X2 release.
The logical conclusion is clear, that Turion 64 X2 CPUs are good, and people (OEMs) want them. Whatever arithmetics beside this is simply irrelevant.
Edward said...
"50% growth one quarter is significant when the segment-wide growth is only 25%, no matter how you look at it."
I did not say it was insignificant.
"...as I had predicted, experienced unprecedented growth after Turion 64 X2 release."
Are you going to be the next Sharikou?
Did you use your vast intellect to conclude this because of there inlays with OEM's, damn didn't see that one coming, good thing you were there to tell us?
"The logical conclusion is clear, that Turion 64 X2 CPUs are good, and people (OEMs) want them."
Did I say they were bad?
Lets see if you can read, and answer some simple questions.
Turion processors are mainly on "value" notebooks. Centrino platform (processor + chipset + wifi card) are on mainstream + high end in retail. What's happening is people are not spending the $500 on a desktop, they are dropping coin on the $750 lappy. Corporate still is all Intel, but the budget consumer is buying low price-point lappies. Yay, lots of growth at the low-margin end for the Turion processor. Every Centrino sales lets Intel cash in, higher margins plus more overall content.
someone tell me who is equipping the Turion chipset and wifi needs...it ain't all ATI.
"Did you use your vast intellect to conclude this because of there inlays with OEM's, damn didn't see that one coming, good thing you were there to tell us?"
First, enumae, your excuses after I layed out the logical reasoning is pathetic. So you didn't say "it [50% growth] is very misleading," or did you? You didn't say "why 50% makes it seem larger than it is," or did you? I said 50% growth is significant; you said it's misleading, but then it's not insignificant. So AMD's 50% growth in mobile sales, in your opinion, seems misleading and larger than it really is, but is still significant, well, perhaps say 3-4% less significant after a bunch of irrelevant arithmetics? What's your logic anyway, if you still can find it?
50% growth is 50% growth; twice the growth rate of the industry segment is significant. Nothing makes it more or less except your own screwed eyes; nothing about it is misleading except your logic-lacking arithmetics. Period.
Also, when I say Turion64 X2 are good chips and I have predicted its sales to increase, I was not talking to you, whom I've given up upon long ago (this being an unfortunate exception). If you want to know why I am so kind to share such _obvious_ fact here, it's because there have been, and still are, ignorant people, believing wholly those Intel-paid review sites, think Turion64 X2 is not competitive.
On the contrary, Turion64 X2 is very good if not better on both performance and battery life. If you factor in the price, it's even more competitive than Intel's marketing $$$, and AMD's 50% growth in mobile (which AMD admits is more on dual-core) is a direct result of its competitiveness.
Edward said...
Edward, I know you have put a label on me as being a fan boi, and since I visit this pro AMD site on a regular basis I can somewhat understand it, but do I say negative things about AMD's products?
Or are most of my post rebutting false or misleading statements?
I would like you to understand I enjoy debating, and I have no intentions of being one sided, that to me would be narrow minded.
So please try and read the following with that in mind.
"First, enumae, your excuses after I layed out the logical reasoning is pathetic."
You should have read my last post on that topic, so do not be so quick to judge.
"I said 50% growth is significant; you said it's misleading, but then it's not insignificant."
Edward, does misleading mean insignificant?
"So AMD's 50% growth in mobile sales, in your opinion, seems misleading and larger than it really is, but is still significant"
Well for anyone that does not understand AMD's market share position in the mobile segment, yes the 50% growth could very well be misleading, people could presume that AMD is making large gains on Intels mobile segment, while in fact they are not.
Thats all.
"50% growth is 50% growth;"
Yes it is.
"twice the growth rate of the industry segment is significant."
Yes it is.
Now do you believe that AMD got all 25% of the market share growth?
If you look at my numbers (they are theoretical and just for an example), you can see that if you take 2.6 million units (the result of the 50% growth) that would equal 26% of the 10% market growth, or 6.5% of the 25% growth.
I hope this makes sense, and that you can see my point that the 50% number your using (and AMD for its shareholders) is or could be misleading to someone who does not know AMD's market share.
Wouldn't you agree that 50% growth sounds better in a confrence call than a 3% market share gain?
Again I am not saying anything negative about AMD, this is what all companies do, make shareholders happy.
"...it's because there have been, and still are, ignorant people, believing wholly those Intel-paid review sites, think Turion64 X2 is not competitive."
The whole Intel is paying reviewers is a little hard for me to accept, not because it is Intel, but because I have a little more faith in the people doing the review, it is hard to believe that they only see money and not the people who are reading there review.
Edward maybe one day we will agree on something, or maybe we won't.
*EDIT*
"that would equal 26% of the market growth, or 6.5% of the 25% growth."
Ok so first of all, lets start off with there are more Intel laptops sold than AMD, so by a statistical argument maybe it just hasn't happened yet. Personally I feel that, well I feel the C2D is better but also you said "It makes a lot of sense. Intel did a price war on desktop, but used mobile to book profits. AMD is smart, it cut desktop prices deeply, but switched production to mobile to get the money." I don't see the difference between the two battle plans, intel cut prices in desktop, so did amd, intel kept the mobile prices the same and so did amd.
Anyway I also agree with ENUMAE it makes perfect sense. If you sold 13 units and your competitor sold 87 then if you increased by 50 percent while the total increase by 25 then we could have to compare 20 (rounding up) units to 105 units. This is still not alot and you sold 7 more units in a 125 unit market, it just doesn't make sense to say it is significant if you gain only represents 5.6% of the market.
Post a Comment
<< Home