Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Intel booked profit from yard sale

"Fourth-quarter results included a gain from the sale of certain assets of the company's communications and application processor business to Marvell Technology Group partially offset by impairments, including an impairment for the related decision to place the company's Fab 23 facility in Colorado Springs, Colo., up for sale. The gain and impairments resulted in a net increase to EPS of approximately 2.5 cents. Fourth-quarter restructuring charges related to the company's structure and efficiency program were in line with the company's expectations and decreased EPS by approximately 1.5 cents."

Intel bought the ARM business from DEC for billions, sold it at a few hundred million and booked the profit.

In 4Q05, Intel's Digital Enterprise group had revenue of $6.4 billion, in 4Q06, it's $5.16 billion, a $1.26 billion drop. Mobility group had a revenue increase of $0.5 billion. In comparison, AMD's revenue grows despite large ASP drop.

Intel's ASP went up. AMD's ASP dropped 14%, yet revenue grew 3% sequentially. Clearly, AMD's market share is close to 30%, leading to a run rate close to 40%.

60 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

--I thought revenue was going to be less than Q306?

Where were the "massive operating losses"?

1:41 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow a net EPS effect of $0.01... yeah that really swings the profitability.

By the way when you sell an asset is is booked as profit? You're such a financial idiot - it's booked as revenue. This isn't the trading of a stock!

Just curious:
1) please explain how Intel ASP's go up in a price war (while AMD's apparently tanked).
2) Is AMD going to include ATI losses in their result or cook the books and quote revenue/earnings excluding the graphics business?

FINALLY - How about doing some real analysis? H0ow does the change DEG/mobility net revenue compare to the overall X86 market changes between mobile and desktop share? Is it inline? Did you even look at this or are you just throwing out #'s?

1:58 PM, January 16, 2007  
Blogger Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

Hmmm... so they made a bad investment in the go-go bubble period. And who here didn't make THAT mistake? Of course, one could chalk that up as part of the cost of making the DEC lawsuit go away. Note that the impact on earnings was pretty damn small- it wasn't a make or break for the quarterly numbers.

Now, let's take another look at the numbers that you choose to ignore:

+ Days of inventory dropped from 90.2 to 81.9- almost a 10% drop.

Note that this understates the real status, as Intel built raw materials inventory while reducing WIP substantially. So the inventory purge is working.

+ Inventory to net working capital ratio dropped from 52.4% to 44.2%. Another way of looking at the inventory numbers, and it is certainly moving in the correct direction. Drivers? Inventory down, total current assets up, total current liabilities down.

+ Cash and ST equivalents are UP. A lot. $1.745B a lot. Throw in trading assets, and liquid assets are up almost $1.8B over last quarter. If that indicates impending "BK" doom, I'd like to suffer that fate. Oh, and did I note that was an addition of $1.8B AFTER spending $726M on stock repurchase and dividends for the quarter...

Was it a great quarter? Dunno. It wasn't a bad one. And it was most assuredly not a harbinger of doom though...

2:10 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That must really hurt Sharikou! Stop fragging yourself!

3:10 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Intel BK by Q2 2008 Sharikou? Are you sticking to your guns or what?

3:11 PM, January 16, 2007  
Blogger IT Kitty Cat said...

Do you want to know why AMD is losing their margins?

See this analysis..

http://itkitty.blogspot.com

3:13 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following article suggests that Intel's ASPs were higher in the price war with AMD: http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/16/intel_q4_2006/.

Print it, scan it, OCR it, spell-check it, then read it on your computer.

Booyakasha.

3:22 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They've got product in the channel that aren't sold & slowing growth sales maybe starting to creep in. I don't like what this news may do to the market tomorrow.

P.

The Revolution Is Here!
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/invest_mavin/

3:26 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh what! I was looking forward to seeing Intel report MASSIVE OPERATING LOSSES! What happened Sharikou? Is Intel still going BK in Q2 08 or what?

3:35 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it's time for people to see this blog for what it is. Entertainment. Seriously, arguing over whether Intel will go Bankrupt is silly. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Amd may end up in the red some quarters, in the black others.

Intel seems to be going for the death blow with 45nm by H207. That too, will not come anytime soon. Even assuming Amd goes bankrupt, it will be kept afloat for many more quarters because of the "opportunity".

I wonder if Intel would be at 65nm without AMD in the picture? I think not. I am hoping quad core mobile will be out in the near future.

3:44 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://download.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/2006Q4_Earnings_Release_Final.pdf?iid=InvRel+Q406earnings

Just does not look like a company that is going bankrupt soon... :)

3:45 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, Ph. D, yo're still an idiot.

3:50 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is, one company is growing and the other is shrinking. Intel is down more than a BILLION dollars from same quarter 2005.

3:53 PM, January 16, 2007  
Blogger TheKhalif said...

Wow, I knew that if you sell the same amount for chips for 60% of their value what can you expect. The whole X86 CPU market has been undervalued by Core 2 and there is NO WAY for Intel to make up the difference on industry growth.

They shot themselves in the foot just like I said they would months ago.

The bleeding will continue.

4:03 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel is on the way DOWN,DOWN,DOWN!

4:15 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TheKhalif said...
Wow, I knew that if you sell the same amount for chips for 60% of their value what can you expect.

I agree, great point.

5:07 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will you guys stop feeding this troll and just head over to Scientia's blog. Unlike this sharkiou clown, he actually defends his points with real information, none of this runrate garbage. I will say that even though he does lean a bit to the Amd side he does it in a way that doesn't turn the topic into a fanboy spewing match. qurious

http://scientiasblog.blogspot.com/

5:51 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow, I knew that if you sell the same amount for chips for 60% of their value what can you expect."

60% of what value? They are still making money right? Margins are about 50% so they are not hurting that bad, it's just that people got use to 60% margins from them. I wonder what Amd's margins will be. The host has always said that Amd can afford to sell their chips for alot less then Intel...we will see.

6:07 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Clearly, AMD's market share is close to 30%, leading to a run rate close to 40%."

Where are these #'s coming from? AMD hasn;t even released earnings yet...

Also how would a 30% MS mean 40% runrate?

A) It appears as you are assuming that market share growth was linear throughout the quarter. (may or may not be)
B) AMD started the quarter at 20% (which it did not!)
C) the 30% # is real (remains to be seen)

Rather disappointed I thought you would put out some more smoke and mirrors to justify the 40% market share #... even for you this is rather weak...

6:40 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous The Sheepshagger said...

In support of Dr. Yield's comment wtih regard to the DEC lawsuit (and also to smite Sharikou):

There was only about $700 million in cash that traded hands between DEC and Intel in 1997 to end an on-going patent dispute. As part of the settlement both exchanged cross-license patents (which included the rights to ARM) for development of future technologies. Additionally, Intel received a the Hudson, Mass. manufacturing facitility (Fab 17) and 2 development centers (on in Jerusalem and Austin, TX). When you include the cost of the fab and
design centers, the total of the settlement was valued at slightly more than $2 billion.

7:19 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BK here INTEL comes

5.7 Billion Net Income

2.3 billion paid in dividends to share holders

4.6 billion used to buy back shares.

Oh also completed ramp of 3 65nm factories, tooled up 2 45nm factories. Taped out Penrym on 45nm that booted all major OS and on track for 2007 release.


Where is AMD 65nm Barcelona, its been taped out for ages..

Where is AMD 45nm Silicon, let along when will 45nm even tape out.

BK.. I'd like it with double cheese Sharikou PhD. What the hell is a PhD doing at BK? he got fired from INTEL.. LOL

9:20 PM, January 16, 2007  
Blogger Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

Our humble host figured:
Intel's ASP went up. AMD's ASP dropped 14%, yet revenue grew 3% sequentially. Clearly, AMD's market share is close to 30%, leading to a run rate close to 40%.

Clearly. Since I'm either too stupid, too lazy (or both!) to do the math, please show me the math that takes ASP= -14% and Revenue= +3% yields a market share of 30%. And for at least the 15th time, please define market share run rate. Without the use of imaginary numbers, please show the calculation that allow AMD a market share run rate of 40%.

Thanks in advance for taking time out of your ramblings to educate us with a few facts and some clear logic...

10:00 PM, January 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou wrote:
Intel's ASP went up. AMD's ASP dropped 14%, yet revenue grew 3% sequentially. Clearly, AMD's market share is close to 30%, leading to a run rate close to 40%.

I would agree that AMD continue to gain market share, not sure at what rate though.

I think the binding-supply to DELL hurt the AMD's ASP a lot. There was time the third-party channels were dried and screaming for parts.

This clearly shows the CPU market settle for duonopoly. And Intell will not go BK.

-Longan-

12:00 AM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel profits down by 39% and revenue dropped by 5% in the last quarter of 2006 according to the mercury news.
Intel lost more market share to AMD-ATI.
Intel selling more of the company in Israel.
More Intel layoffs are expected.
Maybe Sharikous BK estimates are more accurate than most people think.
Antique platforms piled high with super charged pentium 3s dont seem to be selling at all.

1:30 AM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Intel is going down fast.
Not going to bankrupt?

GAAP Results (including the effects of share-based compensation)
-------------------------------------
Q4 2006 vs. Q4 2005
-------------------------------------
Revenue $9.7 billion -5%
-------------------------------------
Operating Income $1.5 billion -55%
-------------------------------------
Net Income $1.5 billion -39%
-------------------------------------
EPS 26 cents -35%


And the AMD results where bad? Compared to this company that has 4 times more market share.....

I understand shit of this, but i do know what the (-) minus means.

2:42 AM, January 17, 2007  
Blogger Roborat, Ph. D. said...

Sharikou:
"Intel's ASP went up. AMD's ASP dropped 14%, yet revenue grew 3% sequentially. Clearly, AMD's market share is close to 30%, leading to a run rate close to 40%."

ASP up, Revenue up 11% - Intel
ASP down, revenue up 3% - AMD
Estimated Q3/Q406 market growth was at 6-8%. Whatever AMD is missing, Intel definitely took it.

Sure, AMD's marketshare runrate is at 40%. But are you sure its not 50%? It's a very important metric which I heard a lot of analysts were asking so we need to be accurate.

5:16 AM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The gain/loss on the sale of a business would not be booked to revenue as suggested above, it would be a gain/loss item on the income statement, before net income (e.g. affects profit/loss).

At a high level, it would be proceeds received for the sale less the net investment cost on the balance sheet(after write-downs of impairment).

Intel is not anywhere near insolvency, Sharikou is hilarious, what a goofball.

8:04 AM, January 17, 2007  
Blogger Aguia said...

Intel is really going bankrupt thats for sure now:

Revenue -9%
Operating Income -53%
Net Income -42%
EPS -39%

Unless the (-) minus means better.
But i dont think so ...

9:04 AM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roborat, Ph. D. said...
ASP up, Revenue up 11% - Intel
ASP down, revenue up 3% - AMD
Estimated Q3/Q406 market growth was at 6-8%. Whatever AMD is missing, Intel definitely took it.

True, revenuewise Intel took the revenue share.

Is market share calculated by number of chips or $$$?

I thought by number of chips? Then AMD gained more market share.

-Longan-

10:41 AM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not sure if AMD had any significant market share gain since AMD was capacity constrained for most of the last quarter.

However long term outlook for market share gain looks promising if AMD resolves the capacity crunch issue. The good news is, according to some sources, AMD has 25% of Dell desktop share and 10% of its laptop share. It is likely that these numbers will significantly increase.

12:06 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks, let's go on STRIKE!! Writing or reading this blog is only a waste of precious time. "Pervasive" what? Pervasive FUD, for sure, nothing to do with 64 bit computing. I leave forever this black hole, bye!

2:11 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"The whole X86 CPU market has been undervalued by Core 2 and there is NO WAY for Intel to make up the difference on industry growth."

Very true. And the worse is, people will soon discover how "ordinary" the Core 2's really are, just like they do the Pentium 4's. You don't benefit from more/better cores with an old memory architecture (FSB), just like you don't benefit from high clockrates and hyper-many threads with poor OOO capability. Core 2 was skewed too much in the favor of enthusiast benchmarking, which will eventually spell its greatest problem.

One rule of thumb: what supercomputers favors today will likely be what's favored by most people tomorrow.

2:22 PM, January 17, 2007  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I leave forever this black hole, bye!


You will be back. I bet. This place is just too attractive.

3:37 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel chip dumping of the obsolete P4 stuff is the only thing keeping Intel’s market share number up. I don’t think they could make it with just Woody and the Con, they’re living on borrowed time. Someday they’ll be out of junk or know one will even want it for free.

Intel is selling fabs, side businesses, old chips and what ever else they can find to raise cash. The CFO looked like shit on the video interview because he’s gained another 20 pounds, has black eye sockets, his face is breaking out and he now talks with a nervous twitch. I don’t think things are going his way lately.

4:46 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, you've mispredicted 2 consecutive quarters of 'massive operating losses' for Intel, can you care to explain how your 'Q208 BK' scenario is going to hold up?

6:39 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The good news is, according to some sources, AMD has 25% of Dell desktop share and 10% of its laptop share. It is likely that these numbers will significantly increase."

Not sure if this is truly that great of news. Dell is paying less/chip (due to volume) than any other channel or OEM would be.

Here's a kick in the ass for everyone: one reason for AMD's ASP going down and Intel's up is the Dell-AMD deal. Intel is now selling those Dell chips elsewhere (due to AMD starving the channel to feed Dell) and the channel and OEM's don't get as good a price as Dell. Or maybe you think Dell pays more for their chips?

Until AMD gets significantly more capacity they are far better off selling them to other OEM's and the channel as opposed to worrying about whether they have 15% or 25% of Dell's business. The fact that they have some business is good enough for credibility and they are much better selling the remaining chips off at higher prices.

7:03 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Intel chip dumping of the obsolete P4 stuff is the only thing keeping Intel’s market share number up. I don’t think they could make it with just Woody and the Con, they’re living on borrowed time."

This statement clearly explains why Intel's ASP went up during Q4. As most economics classes will teach you when you dump a product your ASP's generally go up?!?

7:04 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Very true. And the worse is, people will soon discover how "ordinary" the Core 2's really are, just like they do the Pentium 4's. You don't benefit from more/better cores with an old memory architecture (FSB), just like you don't benefit from high clockrates and hyper-many threads with poor OOO capability. Core 2 was skewed too much in the favor of enthusiast benchmarking, which will eventually spell its greatest problem."

Yeah, the FSB is such a limiter, I wish Intel would just keep making more P4's as the core clearly has no performance benefit when it is hindered by FSB. Also note their really is no performance difference between a 6300 and a 6800, and for SW that ctakes advantage of multicores the Kentsfield is really just the same as a COnroe...

Get a clue Edward, FSB may be a bit of a limiter but under 4P, it is not noticeable in the majority of mainstream applications. You really don't believe what you are saying do you? I assume you are just trying to Intel-bash as you seemed a bit more intelligent than this in previous posts...

7:09 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The whole X86 CPU market has been undervalued by Core 2 and there is NO WAY for Intel to make up the difference on industry growth."

Who cares? Unless you hold AMD or Intel stock, the last I checked both companies still made money (at least until AMD announces Q4'06) and the price I can buy a computer for is flat, yet performance is better. Intel is selling Core2 where the previous Intel products were priced at - how is this "undervaluing the market"? how can these FSB-based, crappy outdated technology with skewed benchmarks undervalue the rest of the market if they are being sold at the same price the previous generation use to be sold at.

Isn't AMD the one that is doing the buy 1 get 1 free FX deal? In some case they are selling 2 FX's for less than 1 FX used to be! Isn't that undervaluing the market, or was the previous price of 1 FX overvaluing the market?

Why does the x86 market need to make up for lower prices - I'm perfectly happy to let Intel and AMD have 50% margin instead of 60%. A 60% margin business is rare and i for one would rather that margin be passed on to customers in terms of lower prices (and/or better performance).

7:18 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's something interesting to think about:

Intel Q4 profit: $1.5 billion
Apple Q4 profit: $1 billion

Intel Q4 revenue:$9.7 billion
Apple Q4 revenue:$7.1 billion

Makes you wonder if Jobs made Otellini dress up in a bunny suit for more than 1 reason.

7:30 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou - you really are an idiot.

Intel ASP's went up from Q3 to Q4'06.
Intel's revenue went down from Q4'05 to Q4'06.

In true Sharikook fashion you are mixing and matching YoY with QoQ #'s

7:55 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here's something interesting to think about:

Intel Q4 profit: $1.5 billion
Apple Q4 profit: $1 billion

Intel Q4 revenue:$9.7 billion
Apple Q4 revenue:$7.1 billion

Makes you wonder if Jobs made Otellini dress up in a bunny suit for more than 1 reason."

Just out of curiosity, you do realize 9.7/1.5 is not much THAT different than 7/1, right?

In fact Intel's revenue:profit ratio is ACTUALLY BETTER!

9:49 PM, January 17, 2007  
Blogger Kalle said...

"One rule of thumb: what supercomputers favors today will likely be what's favored by most people tomorrow."

So you say that Power will be the next CPU in PC's?

"Isn't AMD the one that is doing the buy 1 get 1 free FX deal? In some case they are selling 2 FX's for less than 1 FX used to be! Isn't that undervaluing the market, or was the previous price of 1 FX overvaluing the market?"

I'd say the cost-benefit ratio of 4x4 is so low that with pricing the CPU's any higher would eliminate the last few who would buy that platform

6:23 AM, January 18, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"Also note their really is no performance difference between a 6300 and a 6800, and for SW that ctakes advantage of multicores the Kentsfield is really just the same as a COnroe..."

Actually there is indeed very little performance difference between 6300 and 6800 when the application is memory/IO intensive (and cache friendly), such as most server apps, and some games in normal playable resolutions.

Intel tried so hard to increase bandwidth of FSB; or I guess the FB-DIMM move was out of pure dumbness, if you were so right?

11:32 AM, January 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually there is indeed very little performance difference between 6300 and 6800 when the application is memory/IO intensive (and cache friendly), such as most server apps, and some games in normal playable resolutions.
Just like there wouldn't much difference between a 3800+ or FX-62 in the same scenario.

9:48 PM, January 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually there is indeed very little performance difference between 6300 and 6800 when the application is memory/IO intensive (and cache friendly), such as most server apps, and some games in normal playable resolutions.

Just like there wouldn't much difference between a 3800+ or FX-62 in the same scenario."

Come on clearly Edward is right, no? I mean the reason games don't show much performance gain with clock speed is due to the "outdated" FSB technology, no?. I mean with this "outdated" technology it doesn't matter what the core or clock speed is right?

I believe the exact quote was: "You don't benefit from more/better cores with an old memory architecture (FSB)"

I mean a P4 and Core 2 are essentially the same performance as they are both limited by the FSB, no?

5:19 PM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

""One rule of thumb: what supercomputers favors today will likely be what's favored by most people tomorrow."

So you say that Power will be the next CPU in PC's?
"

Power will not be the next CPU for PCs not for technical reasons, but because it's using a different ISA than x86-64.

However, we're very likely to see the future PC processor microarchitecture going the Power direction - that is, more RISC-oriented, more modular, and more scalable.

Note that while current Core 2 still signifies FSB and northbridge-glued MCM, we WILL see Intel ditching FSB and favoring glueless architecture in near future. Those who claim "FSB is not a limiting factor" will have to eat their own words like they ate the 10GHz processor roadmap less than a year ago.

11:30 PM, January 19, 2007  
Blogger sharikouisallwaysright said...

Are the numbers true?
Intels former ASP ranged from 180-200 Dollars and is fallen yet to much lower 100-120 Dollars?

5:35 PM, January 20, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"I mean a P4 and Core 2 are essentially the same performance as they are both limited by the FSB, no?"

I was talking about the future, whereas you were talking about the past.

Netburst was a poor microarchitecture in terms of instruction parallelism. It's even poorer than Pentium-M. It's also poor for an FSB architecture compared to even Pentium-M.

Some people have problem looking at the future; that's why they'll always be very wrong about it.

8:27 PM, January 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

edwards said:
we WILL see Intel ditching FSB and favoring glueless architecture in near future. Those who claim "FSB is not a limiting factor" will have to eat their own words like ...


someone is BS here, again, as usual.
it is a well known fact that intel will use CSI at later design, talked as if no one know it.

besides, the limiting factor stuff is really per the computing power of the generation. FSB is not the limiting factor for most of the desktop/laptop application today, but it might be one in the future.

it is a well known facts that Core beat the K8 by big margin using real world application not only the benchmarking suites.

it is also well known at least in this blog that edwards always try to use his deceiving words and explantions, twisting the fact. And just recently trying the psychology trick too: my apps run faster in my K8 BS stuff. Get real man and don't be too upset with the current intel lead. you are developing hallucination now.

yeah, i come here for amusement too, not only on Sharikou's post but also those so called techie's explanation (hallucination) on how K8 beats the Core.

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

Note that while current Core 2 still signifies FSB and northbridge-glued MCM, we WILL see Intel ditching FSB and favoring glueless architecture in near future. Those who claim "FSB is not a limiting factor" will have to eat their own words like they ate the 10GHz processor roadmap less than a year ago.
Perhaps, but the FSB doesn't stop Core 2 from obliterating the A64. Nor does HyperTransport and dual memory controllers prevent the Quad FX from losing C2Q in virtually everying, or the embarrasment of losing to the slower clocked FX-62 in virtually game and most desktop applications.

11:13 PM, January 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how will ati's 4x4 chipsets perform. I think it will be different.

12:29 PM, January 22, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"I wonder how will ati's 4x4 chipsets perform. I think it will be different."

If the collaboration of AMD and ATi engineers started 3 months ago, we should see some result from it around the end of 2007. Anything earlier than that was either from AMD or ATi alone.

4:27 PM, January 26, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"it is a well known facts that Core beat the K8 by big margin using real world application not only the benchmarking suites."

You see little performance benefit from Intel-based 4-socket dual-core today except for apps that are coarsely multi-threaded in nature; you see ~10% increase in performance on a 2-socket Intel quad-core over a single quad-core. Keep in mind Intel uses beefy multi-socket boards that are quite power hungry and expensive.

Intel lost big time on high-end servers even with Core 2. There are more new supercomputers built with Opteron than Core 2 (is there any?). Use your brain and guess why.

One evidence of FSB being a limiting factor on desktop is the higher prices of Intel motherboards (~25%). Does a memory controller worth $10?

"it is also well known at least in this blog that edwards always try to use his deceiving words and explantions, twisting the fact. And just recently trying the psychology trick too: my apps run faster in my K8 BS stuff."

If you had never written and benched a real application yourself, you have no place nor merit to speak.

For your information, OpenSSL is not my apps, nor is SHA-1 or MD5, nor is Reed-Solomon codes or Galois Field arithmetics (used massively for cryptography). These "apps" are usually the ones that take the most computational power of workstations. Core 2 doesn't run them faster for me. Don't believe so? Just write the damn code and bench yourself!

"Get real man and don't be too upset with the current intel lead. you are developing hallucination now."

Compared to someone (you) who 1) doesn't write the codes, 2) didn't run the programs, 3) haven't measured the results, I'm sure the person who has hallucination is not me.

"yeah, i come here for amusement too, not only on Sharikou's post but also those so called techie's explanation (hallucination) on how K8 beats the Core."

The amusement of mine is really to see how stupid ignorant people can get. "You should know what you know, and more importantly, what you don't."

4:53 PM, January 26, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"someone is BS here, again, as usual."

Gosh, some people are just hopeless, because they never understand.

"it is a well known fact that intel will use CSI at later design, talked as if no one know it."

CSI, if the project survives inside Intel, was first aimed for the Itaniums, which runs at a whopping under 2Ghz. In theory its execution is in-order, plus its large cache, which should deal with long memory latency much better - yet CSI is still needed for such a memory-nice system at a fast speed of 2Ghz.

As for Xeons, as long as there are people willing to pay extra for a slower & hotter FSB, Intel doesn't really need CSI. But a HyperTransport-like point-to-point architecture has been nevertheless needed for processor performance and scalability.

5:10 PM, January 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Compared to someone (you) who 1) doesn't write the codes, 2) didn't run the programs, 3) haven't measured the results, I'm sure the person who has hallucination is not me.

who told you that i don't code? hallucinating of having the ability to tell someone doesn't code? :) thanks for the amusement. you have energized to write code with lesser bug per kloc :)

8:49 PM, January 26, 2007  
Anonymous edward said...

"who told you that i don't code?"

Then please, save your hallucination accusation for yourself, and go write the codes I mentioned above and bench them on both K8 and C2D, after which you'd understand how badly you've had hallucination about others hallucinating.

3:11 AM, January 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


edward said...

"who told you that i don't code?"

Then please, save your hallucination accusation for yourself, and go write the codes I mentioned above and bench them on both K8 and C2D, after which you'd understand how badly you've had hallucination about others hallucinating.


Thanks for another one. my codes' bug per kloc has reached an amazing low point now! :)

5:15 PM, January 29, 2007  
Anonymous ed said...

"Thanks for another one. my codes' bug per kloc has reached an amazing low point now! :)"

You must be hallucinating.

11:28 AM, January 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ed said...

"Thanks for another one. my codes' bug per kloc has reached an amazing low point now! :)"

You must be hallucinating.


yeah, you are . His hallucination syndrome is contagious. :)

3:28 PM, January 31, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home