Friday, January 05, 2007

Intel got a lot to hide

Read this tearful story on how Intel's Nazism deprived AMD's the right to gain market share -- many AMD workers had to go because of Intel's unlawful conduct.

Two of SUN's Opteron servers won awards, but more people choose DELL for servers.

A reader suggested that AMD should amend its complaint to add a RICO claim. A very good idea indeed. I see less severe acts sued for RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations).

27 Comments:

Blogger enumae said...

Sharikou,

This is off topic, but I was wondering if your 40% market share run rate would have anything to do with AMD reaching about 24% market share in Q4 2006.

I was looking at the numbers and that would seem to be the magic number based on most of your post and predictions.

Am I right?

Thanks.

4:19 PM, January 05, 2007  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

AMD reaching about 24% market share in Q4 2006.

Who told you this?

AMD's 4Q06 market share will be close to 30%.

4:21 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD's Q3 market share was 23.3%. You mean to tell me that it has gone up 6.7% in one quarter. Are you mad or just don't have a clue??? It took Amd a year to go from 17.7% to 23.3% and now they will go up the same in a quarter hmmm....I'm with enumae, 24% sounds right to me.

4:54 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The sooner Intel is penalised for its criminal conduct the better!!I hope senior executives are jailed as happened to senior executives at Enron."Intel" is such a dirty word that I think they will have to change the name.I stopped buying Intel products MANY years ago and have no intention of ever buying them again.
Just who do they think they are?I think that an investigation of Intel under the RICO Act is justified!

5:03 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD can't compete with Intel anymore. It's processors are old and junk. You can either have 90nm QuadFX that uses more power than five regular processors, or 65nm process that is clearly broken and produces SLOWER processors!

6:07 PM, January 05, 2007  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

AMD can't compete with Intel anymore.

4 Opteron cores frag 8 Clovertown cores by a large margin. Are you blind?

6:27 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"4 Opteron cores frag 8 Clovertown cores by a large margin. Are you blind?"

Don't just say it show it. Link...

8:37 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD can't compete...

Leave it to Sharikou to dig up the irrelevant.

Did you know GM frags Toyota when it comes to large SUVs and trucks.


Guess who is kicking GM's ass? Toyota in the bread and butter.

AMD can have their 8 way.. it'll be their death sentence if they can't win or make money in the high volume space. Does anyone remembe DEC, data general, the list is long..

When is INTEL going BK again Sharikou...

Ho Ho Ho

9:36 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Don't just say it show it. Link..."

"You can either have 90nm QuadFX that uses more power than five regular processors, or 65nm process that is clearly broken and produces SLOWER processors!"


you must be blind then, it's been shown over and over.

and before you start QQ about power usage maybe have a look at
http://techreport.com/reviews/ 2006q4/xeon-vs-opteron/index.x?pg=11
not bad for that old junk


and yes they are old- which makes it even more funny that they keep eating share from Intel nonstop for what, 3 years, and still eating. Not long left to Barcelona either.

and the 65nm process doesn't produce slower processors, wtf, use your brain, if anything a >design change< can make a processor slower for the purpose of enabling some options to come that make it faster. believe it was for more cache if i remember correctly. and like you could see the difference in any programs you use anyway.

want a newer model thats slower then the old? buy a prescott.

9:44 PM, January 05, 2007  
Blogger PENIX said...

Intel disgusts me. I no longer have any respect for them.

10:06 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's a penix?

11:19 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"and yes they are old- which makes it even more funny that they keep eating share from Intel nonstop for what, 3 years, and still eating."

Actually what's funny is that after 3 years of eating they are up to a whole 23% market share. Must be on the Nicole Richie diet!

12:03 AM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger S said...

Why the AMD fan boys always refer to Techreport ? Is that the only site paid by AMD ? I can understand. Weighed down by the interest payments, they may not have much money to spare for marketing.

12:58 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

at (one of the) anonymus :
"AMD can't compete with Intel anymore. It's processors are old and junk."

With respect to your opinion :
There is a lot of INTEL stuff in the market, that is "older and junker".

You might be very keen on to find one of the most advanced 32 bit celeron/centrino notebooks on the market which can run 32 bit windows 95, plus additionally 16 bit dos applications.

regards juergen

1:48 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny how Sharikou has previously advocated violence and murder against the employees of Intel Israel, yet always goes on about how Intel are the horrible, evil people.

2:30 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The results of the anandtech server article are likely very close to the potential relative performance of Quad FX v. comparable Intel setup. How AMD managed to deliver such a flawed package after considerable delay is very disappointing.
--Though AMD may be sandbagging - I remember during the original Athlon days an official said that clock speed would be determined by the marketing people, not engineering. Ha!

--Sharikou, please note that your verification word does not show up on my Win XP SE2/Firefox setup.

Thanks
tobyw

4:12 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cry me a river and drown in it, after you've built a bridge so we can get over it.

8:02 AM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger TheKhalif said...

"4 Opteron cores frag 8 Clovertown cores by a large margin. Are you blind?"

Don't just say it show it. Link...


http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster


If you scan though these, the only architecture that can lead over Opteron only does so because of a lack of cache-coherency above 8 sockets.

Once Barcelona lands with L3 and cache-coherency, a 16/32 proc server (64/128 cores) will pretty much obliterate everything in Transactions and HPC.

AMD already owns non-clustered TPC-H and Barcelona will open up TPC-C.

Add an accelerator (or 4) to it and OMG!

AMD has quoted 70% increases over Opteron in OLTP and there are still 5 months left (3 counting starts) to tweak it.

I actually expect 80% increase per socket at least.

10:00 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I predict your blog will get closed soon.

10:29 AM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger Jeach! said...

I don't currently have time to read a 22 page report... wish you could have referenced a specific part!


AMD can have their 8 way.. it'll be their death sentence if they can't win or make money in the high volume space. Does anyone remembe DEC, data general, the list is long..


Funny how (anonymous) people use this to compare the future. Although I'm a firm believe that the past refelect the future, in this case it couldn't be more wrong. Here is why!

Back in the DEC and data general ecpoch building different and non compatible devices was the trend. You servived by building something custom but better than your competitor. When a company bought your products, they pretty much were with you for a very, very long time.

Times have changed since then. Now its about being open and working 100% with other hardware.

What killed the DEC was not volume, it was lack of marketing (and lack of vision within the company).

Second, you've got to understand that back some 10 to 20 years ago, the PC was NOT commoditized, which meant you got 10% to 20% margins on each PC sold. The higher the volume, the better it was. Today PC's (low end processors/chips) are commoditized, which means that selling hight level is the only way you'll make a profit. But the global corporate profit is NOT from that business segment, it comes from higher margin segments, such as servers.

Intel can sell 50 million processors, but if they only make $10 on each, they only make $500 million. If Intel is locked out of the high-end 8, 16-way quad core market, then they won't make much money from that either.

On the other end, if AMD only sells 5 million $10 processors, but make $800 on 1 million high-end server processors, then your talking about $850 million.

See how the majority of the revenue comes from high-end parts and not the volumed products.

To go back to the DEC and Data General example, you've also got to remember that most RISC based processors had it's UNIX that came along with it. And companies such as Oracle developed its products for these UNICES. So if DEC had an amazaing processor but lacked in the OS segment it affected its sales dramatically. So the OS could be a leading factor to bankruptsy and not the processor.

Today its a different story because both competitors are CISC based processors which means they have major OS and application support.

AMD has said it over and over again: They are NOT a PC chip company, they are a server chip company! Do make the distinction!

And if you look at Intel's attitude and behavior, you can tell they have not learnt all of this.

1. They tried to produce a non-open, non-standard RISC based processor... ITANIUM. (See how people collectively rejected it as not to be locked in like DEC, IBM , Data General use to do)!

2. Intel agressivly does everything to not loose desktop market-share, which shows how they want to be a processor company (rather than a server company).

3. There product design is good for desktop but is not good for servers (a good example of where you want your company to be in the future).

Overall, corporate attitude and vision will make you successfull, not your product.

People may sit here and say Xeon is better, C2D is better, Opteron is better. But remember one thing, as long as both products are evenly match, its not the 90nm vs. 65nm that will make a difference. Its how many processors you can sell which is why Intel still has the advantage, but is loosing this race slowly year after year.

YOU CAN HAVE THE BEST PROCESSOR IN THE WORLD, BUT IF YOU CAN'T BUILD IT TO SELL IT, YOU DON'T WIN!!

11:10 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jeech!, Earnings reports for both companies will be coming out in a few weeks and I believe that no matter what the numbers look like you will find a lot of spinning. Truth be told that Intel still has the lions share for mobile, desktop, and server and for most of 2007 Intel will gain back some share. Flame on flamers.

3:37 PM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Server company or Desktop company?

Its an easy answer for each company.

INTEL is a desktop company that will sell 200+ million CPUs and chipsets wiht profits of billions.

AMD is trying to migrate to being a server company selling a few million CPUs and make little to no money. At the same time need to invest 2+ billion in a new factory and another 1 billion in 45/32nm to still trail INTEL by more then a year and half at each technology node. They have to sell desktop inferior desktop chips to fill the rest of their 2 billion dollar factory. They use valuable leading edge silicon for their integrated memory controler that is only an advantage for multi-way servers. Joe Best buy frankly doesn't care. INTEL on the other hand uses amortized 8" factories to build the chipsets.

You tell me who has a broken business model?

5:03 PM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger Roborat, Ph. D. said...

All i see is 22 pages of whining.

7:03 AM, January 07, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD is a server CPU company?
How come they dont have a single server CPU then?

AMD is only low-end and thanks to their incapability to develop real fast CPUs, they will never gain access to the big player´s high-end market

9:03 AM, January 07, 2007  
Blogger Jeach! said...


All i see is 22 pages of whining.


Sorry, this version wasn't meant to be looked at, but actually read.

But I believe AMD lawyers are working on a cartoon version with big pictures and colors for you and Intel.... comming soon!

1:29 PM, January 07, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WTF..

Some monkey said "YOU CAN HAVE THE BEST PROCESSOR IN THE WORLD, BUT IF YOU CAN'T BUILD IT TO SELL IT, YOU DON'T WIN!!"

INTEL today has the best processor in the world and is on track to ship probaby 170million + from 4 300mm 65nm factories.

Its AMD that has no processor on 65nm worth a damm that is slashing prices and having firesales to move invetory. Q4 results will say it all. INTEL profits will be down but they will still be making money hand over fist. AMD will be hurting big time.

5:45 PM, January 07, 2007  
Blogger Jeach! said...


"YOU CAN HAVE THE BEST PROCESSOR IN THE WORLD, BUT IF YOU CAN'T BUILD IT TO SELL IT, YOU DON'T WIN!!"


When I said that I don't specifically target Intel, but any industry as a whole.

But in the AMD/Intel case, in terms of the volume segments, it doesn't matter who has the superior/inferior products. As long as you can build it, you will sell them. But if you can't get it built, you will LOSE!

Contrary to common belief, AMD will NOT go bankrupt if:

a) AMD has a resonably inferior product in terms of MHz/benchmarks.

b) AMD has a resonably inferior technology (BUS/cores/cache).

c) AMD has a resonably inferior process technology (90nm, 65nm, 45nm).

d) AMD runs a little hotter than Intel.

But AMD will go bankrupt if it can't match or surpass Intel's production in terms of quantity and price!!

9:49 PM, January 07, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home