Thursday, January 11, 2007

Courts have more efficient customer service

A customer kept calling DELL for five months with no results. The Court solved the computer problem in one day.

23 Comments:

Anonymous The Sheepshagger said...

Oddly enough... it was a laptop with an AMD Turino processor. Had he just purchased a laptop with an Intel cpu he wouldn't have had the issue. Am I right?

Do you sense the irony? The only way to fix a problem with a faulty Turino laptop is to go to court... much like the the way AMD goes to court to try and fix the rest of their issues by suing Intel.h

1:43 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Oddly enough... it was a laptop with an AMD Turino processor.

No. It was a laptop with a Core Duo -- DELL only started doing Turions in Nov 2006, so you know that dude was having a core duo which is capable of double explosions. The judge made a no brainer decision -- Intel laptop, bad, $3000 damage, it is so ordered.

4:21 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are such a flaming tool.

No where in that article does it say what type of laptop it was. No where does it say when the laptop was purchased. Given the state of our legal system granted it was probable an intel based system.

Also - please PLEASE stop with the Intel causing laptops to explode bullshit. It's old and it's false. Sony has already PUBLICLY admitted it was thier issue that caused the batteries to explode. Is this english a little too much for you to comprehend?

Congrats, Sharidouche G.E.D. You again make yourself look like a complete F#$@Tard.

5:34 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Core2Dude said...

Hey Sharikou,

Here's some interesting data. AMD projects that their Q4 revenue will be only 3% higher compared to Q3 revenue.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7b7AB35E97-13EF-450B-9059-F85FBE57C97A%7d&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo

On the other hand, concensus enstimate on Intel is $9.4B in Q4 vs $8.47 in Q3. That is a whopping 11% increase.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ao?s=INTC

Now you have a choice: you can either predict that AMD gained market share in Q4, which will lead to conclusion that AMD's margins went down, and Intel's went up substantially. Or you can claim that AMD lost market share. So what is it going to be?

How's Kb by 2Q08 projection coming along?

Joker!

5:43 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, Ph.d you are really, really sick. Hospital is waiting for you.

5:48 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

which will lead to conclusion that AMD's margins went down, and Intel's went up substantially.

I have called for AMD to forgo margin a long time ago, just flood the hell out of the market, once AMD reaches 50% mkt share, Intel will BK in 2 quarters, then AMD can make all the money..

6:18 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said...
"You are such a flaming tool.

Intel causing laptops to explode. It's old and it's true. Sony has already PUBLICLY admitted it was thier issue that intel's Core 2 Duo caused the batteries to explode.

Congrats, Sharidouche G.E.D. You again make me look like a complete F#$@Tard."

I agree totally with your statment, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. *Serious nod*

6:28 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have called for AMD to forgo margin a long time ago, just flood the hell out of the market, once AMD reaches 50% mkt share, Intel will BK in 2 quarters, then AMD can make all the money.."

It's a shame you're not sitting on Hector's chair. With such a bulletproof strategy, nothing can stop AMD from world dominance! Go Doctor Sharikou! Down with Hector Ruiz!

LOL

7:53 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

With such a bulletproof strategy, nothing can stop AMD from world dominance! Go Doctor Sharikou!

That's how you fight the NAZIs, you must make some sacrifices. Intel started the price war, its goals are simple: kill AMD and make all the money itself. The only way for AMD to counter that is to hurt your enemy so bad that they can't hurt you any more. With rapidly expanding capacity, AMD can deliver the payload.

For AMD to report an operating profit under such conditions is not bad at all. You have to remember that AMD invested billions and the added depreciation is huge.

8:05 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger S said...

"For AMD to report an operating profit under such conditions is not bad at all. You have to remember that AMD invested billions and the added depreciation is huge."

Why is there a revenue shortfall ? That's the bigger question, Why is the meagre revenue increase in spite of all the new deals and ramps ?

11:41 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Jeach! said...

On the other hand, concensus enstimate on Intel is $9.4B in Q4 vs $8.47 in Q3. That is a whopping 11% increase.

Come on core2dude! When your revenues are in the pits a small climb back up, especially in an expanding industry, isn't nothing to brag about!

Besides, if the industry has expanded by 14% in 2006, strong 4th quarter, new products in Intel's lineup, etc AND the fact that AMD is production deprived, Intel should have gone up more than 25% in revenues!

Intel will BK in 2 quarters, then AMD can make all the money..

I'd like to remind you Sharikou that IF they were to go bankrupt, it would only be Chapter 11 which means that Intel would come back within a year with a much, much stronger financial position.

They would still be around!

11:46 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have called for AMD to forgo margin a long time ago, just flood the hell out of the market,"

You seem to forget that AMD does not have the capacity to do this!(due to it's less than ideal 65nm shrink and relatively slow 65nm ramp rate thus far and increasing mix if dual cores)

As you like to point out AMD sells every chip they make - so they either are starting to build substantial inventory in Q4 (we'll be able to see this with Q4 report) or there capacity is nowhere near what you have been estimating.

Given your ignorance on capacity calculations in the past, I would put my $$ on the latter explanation.

1:41 AM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Besides, if the industry has expanded by 14% in 2006, strong 4th quarter, new products in Intel's lineup, etc AND the fact that AMD is production deprived, Intel should have gone up more than 25% in revenues!"

Are you on crack? You think a 25% quarter on quarter increase is epected for an industry that grew ~15% all year?!?

You also completely ignore the expected disparity of QoQ growth between Intel and AMD for Q3/Q4.

If you actually look at pricing you may notice the Core 2's are not priced much higher than their previous counterparts, especially in desktop space.

You may want to actually think about some numbers before making such silly comments - 25% expected revenue increase?!?!? I'm taking it you're not a financial analyst. You also may want to look at some previous year's #"s to look at what would be an expected seasonable benenefit from Q3 to Q4.

1:48 AM, January 12, 2007  
Blogger S said...

"Intel should have gone up more than 25% in revenues!"

You don't know your maths. Intel's sales are around 5times AMD in CPUs and 6times overall. Even if AMD sales are down by 10%, that will be only 2% of Intel's sales. Only way Intel can increase sales by 25% in one quarter will be if they buy AMD.

6:10 AM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"Why is there a revenue shortfall ? That's the bigger question, Why is the meagre revenue increase in spite of all the new deals and ramps ?"

The revenue is disappointing, but it's still a increase, not a shortfall. The new deals and ramps AMD got are compensated by the lower selling prices. It was clear from the press release. Had AMD not ramped production fast enough, or not got those new deals, it would've been in deep trouble.

Intel OTOH can withstand the price war better because the processor manufacturing cost (including R&D) are high and fixed and because it is shedding weight quickly (unlike AMD which is gaining weight).

What is more interesting IMO is which company is gaining market share. If AMD is still gaining, as it is claimed in the press release, then it seems Intel's price war isn't giving AMD that much a blow. In the short term, it of course will AMD a hard time. But in the long term (~ 1 yr), if AMD comes out from this price war okay, it will be at a more level playground to Intel than ever.

11:18 AM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"On the other hand, concensus enstimate on Intel is $9.4B in Q4 vs $8.47 in Q3."

I once heard that Intel's processor revenue is 1.5 times of the total revenue of the company. Intel's overall revenue will keep increasing as the company keeps selling/closing its money-losing departments.

Intel's management is doing a respectable job of turning the company around. The company's focus on processor, chipset, and wireless are also the right ones. However, the way it tries to aggressively release new cores with small improvements in a sole attempt to kill off competition from AMD will not only damage the industry but also itself. I'd rather Intel concentrates its resources not to fast product releases but to better product R&D.

11:40 AM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The revenue is disappointing, but it's still a increase, not a shortfall. The new deals and ramps AMD got are compensated by the lower selling prices. It was clear from the press release."

It is not an increase if you factor in the historical expected seasonal increase from Q3 to Q4. Funny how just last quarter when Intel INCREASED market share you said that it wasn't real because Via lost market share and that we should put the numbers in context - now I will turn this around on you, put AMD's revenues in context with expected Q3/Q4 historical seasonal increases.

Also note in AMD's release the warning on earnings was EXCLUDING ATI related one time charges and the expected operating loss on the graphics side. The earnings warning was CPU only! The aggregate may actually be a GAAP loss (though I think they may be slightly positive)

"However, the way it tries to aggressively release new cores with small improvements"

AMD went to 0.5 multipliers why again? AMD is doing the same thing - there is not much difference between 1 speed grade on AMD's products either.

And I truly hope you are not referring to architecture and are saying that Core 2 was a small improvement over P4 in desktop and server space.

As a consumer I actually like the fact that I can now buy a quad core chip CHEAPER than Intel's best single core chip only 2 years ago. I hope AMD can keep up, so this trend continues, but I'm not going to subsidize them by buying inferior products to keep them afloat out of a sense of company loyalty. Likewise if I was buying a 4P server, it would be an AMD based system right now without question.

Finally, when you talk about spending money on new cores, I wish AMD would do the same too instead of wasting money slapping together a 4x4 system just to keep up on the PR front. While this may be a viable product a year or 2 from now, the development should have been low key and the product should have been introduced when it may have some value (H2'07 with K8l desktop?) and had the bugs ironed out (maybe use only 1 chipset to help with the power consumption?).

Instead they are undercutting their FX brand pricewise (the AM2 chips are now "X2's" at lower prices) and are having to support 3 more SKU's on 90nm...

2:27 PM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is more interesting IMO is which company is gaining market share. If AMD is still gaining, as it is claimed in the press release"

Did the release actually state that? The one I read said they increased unit shipments - you are missing a few critical bits of data before you can convert that into gaining market share (namely how much it increased and how much the overall market grew in the quarter).

2:31 PM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Intel's overall revenue will keep increasing as the company keeps selling/closing its money-losing departments."

I assume you mean earnings and not revenue?

Even if these are divisions are losing money they still provide revenue (they are just not profitable...). As an example the flash business contributes revenue, but operates at a net income loss. Shedding that would not increase revenue but it would help earnings and margin.

Please learn the difference between revenue and earnings (or profits or income)

2:45 PM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Also - please PLEASE stop with the Intel causing laptops to explode bullshit. It's old and it's false. Sony has already PUBLICLY admitted it was thier issue that caused the batteries to explode. Is this english a little too much for you to comprehend?


What? This is completely false! Sony recalled millions of batteries at a cost of millions and millions of dollars because Intel's processors were at fault! Er... I mean, why would they do that? I think you were right! I just slipt into Sharikou mode for a while! lolol

5:35 PM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"I assume you mean earnings and not revenue?

... Shedding that would not increase revenue but it would help earnings and margin.
"

Actually, shedding off money losing businesses can increase revenue as the company focuses its marketing on the money making ones.

You actually notice a lot more Intel ads this year, for example; you also notice Intel reducing prices much more aggressively (not saying it's a bad thing to the consumers) this year. Both will encourage (short term) sales.

"Funny how just last quarter when Intel INCREASED market share you said that it wasn't real because Via lost market share and that we should put the numbers in context - now I will turn this around on you, put AMD's revenues in context with expected Q3/Q4 historical seasonal increases."

First, I believe it was Scientia who raised the "VIA-factor" argument, not me. I kinda despise anonymous like you who put up blindly shooting BS like this into arguments.

Second, In Q3, both Intel and AMD gained market share, which makes the VIA factor a reasonable thing to consider. However, if in Q4 AMD can keep shipping siginificantly more units, given 1) it's already capacity constrained in Q3, and 2) K8 is not cleanly superior than Conroe as it was than Netburst, then the revenue and unit increase do mean AMD doing okay.

"AMD went to 0.5 multipliers why again? AMD is doing the same thing - there is not much difference between 1 speed grade on AMD's products either."

You must be half-blind to make ignorant comments like this. Or maybe you just lack knowledge in microarchitecture. The 0.5 multiplier is not for now, but for future where memory and CPU speed difference increases more.

You seem also not knowing how circuit design works. A speed grade does not come from the design team, but the process team. AMD's design team has been doing a great job in keeping good balance (tradeoff) of their processors. Look at Athlon64; if you want low cost, get S754; if you want DC, get S939; if you want virtualization or abililty to upgrade to QC, get AM2. Just one processor family for each platform.

Have you seen the terribly confusing mixes of Pentium-4s, Pentium-Ms, and Core Solos/Duos? What are they and how are they different within and between the families? I mean this many different cache sizes, FSB speeds, 64-bit capacilities and all got to take a lot of design resources of the company.

"And I truly hope you are not referring to architecture and are saying that Core 2 was a small improvement over P4 in desktop and server space."

Core 2 does not come from Netburst; it comes from Yonah, which comes from the P-M core. I have no problem with this evolution path. However, look at how Intel's been flooding the market with LOTs of Netburst, P-M, and Core Solo variants (whereas one family each would've done the job). It's a waste of the company's resource in a failed attempt to kill off competition. The same would apply to Conroe, whether Intel's able to kill off competition or not this time.

"Finally, when you talk about spending money on new cores, I wish AMD would do the same too instead of wasting money slapping together a 4x4 system just to keep up on the PR front."

You really have no idea, do you? 4x4 doesn't cost AMD except some packaging; the main problem of 4x4 is on the motherboard and chipset side, which in AMD's vision it has to solved (multiprocessor desktop) sooner or later. AMD doesn't even ask you to buy 4x4; if you want good-performing, low-cost PCs, AM2 is more than enough. 4x4 is for megataskers.

If you think 4x4 not worthy, tell you what, Intel followed suit in the recent CES. Unfortunately its FSB approach means performance only ~10% better over the single-socket version, and there is no hope for it to perform well for megataskers (people who run virtual machines or multiple processes aggressively). This FSB approch multi-socket desktop is a true waste.

"I hope AMD can keep up, so this trend continues, but I'm not going to subsidize them by buying inferior products to keep them afloat out of a sense of company loyalty."

Ignorant people who do not bench their own applications will keep saying things like above. I am a programmer & I write programs and simulators for complex engineering calculations that run for hours sometimes days. 2/3 of my programs run better on K8 than Conroe. Note, my programs don't/can't use SSE codes.

What we see is that Intel makes a CPU which is optimized for enthusiast benchmarking. Conroe runs 25% better on SSE-optimized codes, 20% better on some memory-optimized AI programs, and 15% better on apps that favors large cache. The overall result is that you'd benefit from Conroe if the followings are true:

1. You transcode lots of videos and audios from and to harddrives.

2. You play games with poor graphics settings.

3. You run database / webserver with a small dataset for yourself.

4. You really like to calculate Pi.

Yes, K8 is inferior in these four aspects. However, K8 is faster in most other situations. For example, security (important for almost all online accesses); for example, non-sse source/channel coding (important for almost all streaming accesses). Pecuriously, these were never benched, and I guess they will never be, because people simply don't know/want how to bench them.

Anyway, if you don't like what I said, just keep your ignorant beliefs; I have no problem with that.

12:48 AM, January 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Yes, K8 is inferior in these four aspects. However, K8 is faster in most other situations. For example, security (important for almost all online accesses); for example, non-sse source/channel coding (important for almost all streaming accesses). Pecuriously, these were never benched, and I guess they will never be, because people simply don't know/want how to bench them.

Most others?????? Ha! Are you suggesting that AMD is faster on the internet?

10:29 AM, January 15, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"Most others?????? Ha! Are you suggesting that AMD is faster on the internet?"

Actually yes, if it's encrypted communication. The higher complexity the encryption, the better K8's performance is compared to Core 2.

12:32 PM, January 16, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home