Athlon 64 X2 3GHZ at $239
Athlon 64 X2 2.2GHZ at $99, X2 3GHZ at $239 (out of stock already). I hope AMD has enough stock of these.
AMD's pricing is disruptive, considering that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHZ) is sold at $509. AMD enjoys a 2x price/performance advantage.
The K10 killer will be demoed later this month. AMD should put an Intel box next to the K10, and show that the K10 is 40% faster. It should be noted that on the day K10 is demoed, Intel will cut prices significantly.
AMD's game is simple. Use high clock K8 to battle Core 2 Duo, and take the high end market with K10. In floating point, K10 is 3.6x the speed of dual core K8.
Once K10 is out, all K8 and Core 2 CPUs will be sold at below $100. I expect the Core 2 Duo E6800 to be sold at $97, the E6700+ at $96, and the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ at $95, the E6430 at $94, the X2 3600+ will drop a buck to $64. The K10 CPUs will be priced from $150 to $999. Intel will suffer a violent death.
Intel can only hope K10 is not as good as AMD claims to be. Otherwise, there is no way Intel can survive.
I think even die hard Intelers must agree that AMD is better value:
With $509 you can buy a Core 2 Duo 6700, or you can spend $239 on an X2 6000+ which leaves you $270 to buy an AMD 690G MB+ 2GB ram + a 320 GB HDD. The whitebox vendors will have no problem making the right choice of CPUs.
The 2.4GHZ Athlon 64 X2 4600+ boxed CPU+fan is now at $116 with free shipping. The slower Core 2 Duo E6300 is at $181.
The Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2.8GHZ) is at $179.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 4/09/2007 01:31:00 PM
76 Comments:
Watching the Core 2 Extreme slice through our benchmark suite is much like watching Michael Schumacher's Ferrari start at the pole and lead every lap to the finish in an F1 race. There may be some high-speed twists and turns along the way, but the outcome is never really in doubt.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=1
Any news on AMD's or Intels Q1 marketshare, profits and revenue? I sence something interesting coming up. Roughly putting YoY >2B down to ~1.2B with AMD and ATI combined.
Main reason for such a deep drop in financials is the price war. Where Intel can simply release new and faster CPUs to replace current high-ends while lowering the prices, AMD has nothing and won't have nothing for quite some time.
Selective reading again? If you look at the Q1 review on that site, it clearly states: "AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600."
So, for $308 at NewEgg, I can get a processor that performs equivalent to the $239 6000+ AND consume 80W less at full load. (163W vs 243W). Idle power consumption is lower as well. Not the performance gold standard you'd want, no? Especially when the fastest offering is only competitive (price AND performance) with mid-grade from Intel.
I truly hope for AMD's sake that the 2-core variant of Barcelona is a more competitive offering. If it isn't, the consequences will be ugly.
Just wait until the end of the month when e6700 will be priced ~$320 and E6600 conciderably cheaper.
AMD's game is simple. Use high clock K8 to battle Core 2 Duo, and take the high end market with K10.
looks like their plan is to keep lowering prices until someone is foolish enough to buy one.
AMD WARNS AGAIN! low asp, low volume sales. i suppose this is what you meant by 40% run-rate.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9e95da52-e6a3-11db-9034-000b5df10621.html
Roborat, Ph. D. said...
looks like their plan is to keep lowering prices until someone is foolish enough to buy one..blah blah
Dude Sharikou here has a siginificant point. What you have stated is repeated by you in your last 100 comments. You should do a little better than this , else suffer being taken out of Intel's payroll :-))
And BTW this price war was started by Intel to move their Crappy Netburst chips...
BTW this price war was started by Intel to move their Crappy Netburst chips...
AMD and Intel has been in battle for 30+ years. The main problem AMD had before K8 was capacity and quality. Today, AMD has the capacity and all the OEMs, all they need to do is lowering price low enough and taking market share.
Question for Dr. Yield
Is your watts comparison with or without the FSB figured in on the Intel?
Sharikou
...all they need to do is lowering price low enough and taking market share.
As I am sure you know, they have been doing this all year and could very well be loosing market share.
How much do you think these 13 days will help AMD considering Intel will be lowering prices while releasing 3 new processors (6420,6320,4300) on the 22nd?
How much do you think these 13 days will help AMD considering Intel will be lowering prices while releasing 3 new processors (6420,6320,4300) on the 22nd?
How much will 6420 cost? Will it be lower than $179?
did the pretender miss the point here
"I hope AMD has enough stock of these."
"I think even die hard Intelers must agree that AMD is better value"
Clearly AMD has lots in stock that is why prices keep falling yet they are still in stock.
AMD is a value, but you know what value is not enough to keep AMD a float.
How about them Q1 revenues hey sharikou.. INTEL looks like on the brink of BK heah there. INTEL will do close to a billion profit on soft revenue. AMD will be hundred million in the red, cutting R&D on 45nm and putting the hold on NY fab, whats worst tool install and purchases for the last half of the 65nm 300mm ramp in dresden on hold.
Not good situation as they try and catch INTEL. They won't get the 2nd half 2007 and early 2008 capacity in place.
Price cuts along and value do not make a sustainable business.
BK in 2008 is AMD I say..
LOL
AMD broken strategy.
Chase market share with an inferior volume product on an inferior process node and with inferior process technology = Bankruptcy.
Ruiz should be fired.
He should be focused exclusily on the high margin server and nich products where he can command the ASP he needs to cover his inferior process and cost structure. To try and compete and Dell and give away profits to Charter to compete with INTEL in High volume is stupid. Hector will be a Harvard Business case study of what do do wrong when you have a unqiue advantage and don't sieze it.
BK in 2008 Sharikou.. AMd that is... LOL
How much will 6420 cost? Will it be lower than $179?
$183 actually, with the real kickers being the 6320 for $163 and the E4400 for $133.
AMD pulled less money with ATI this quarter than they did without ATI last quarter. HA!
AMD BK 1H'09.
It may seem like both Intel and AMD are cutting prices for competitive purposes, and this is true, but their reasons for doing so are very different.
Intel's infamous "yard sale" a few months back was a desparate attempt to sell idle inventory, which would otherwise just rot on shelves. There is absolutely no reason to buy Intel, and the word was spreading quickly. Intel could either make no sales at all, or give their garbage away a an absurdly low price to try recoup some of their massive losses.
AMD current price cuts are yet another stab at the already wounded Intel. AMD has taken market share from Intel at an alarming rate, destoying their profitability. AMD now holds the performance crown with their current generation of chips, and Barcelona promises an even greater lead. Even their budget line offers a minimal 2x advantage price to performance ratio. Again, there is no reason to buy Intel trash, and AMD is making sure it stays that way.
AMD current price cuts are yet another stab at the already wounded Intel. AMD has taken market share from Intel at an alarming rate, destoying their profitability.
As long as AMD has the capacity and is well positioned in mobile, server and desktop market, it can keep cutting price to hurt Intel, which has 100K employees to feed.
AMD has 16,500 employees
Intel has 99,000 you do the math about who will be hurt the most as crunch time continues. Showing a new cpu isn't the same as having it ready for production. Anyone can show a one piece prototype at a news conference but that doesn't mean it will be in production any time soon.
. Anyone can show a one piece prototype at a news conference but that doesn't mean it will be in production any time soon.
I agree. That's why we won't see Barcelona any time soon!
DAAMIT's revenue is sliding because it has no choice but to sell CPUs this cheap. AMD is making no profit. Intel, OTOH, has maintained it's fair C2D pricing since last July. Still, in late April Intel will cut prices drastically to finish off AMD quickly. After these prices increases AMD will have to sell 6000+ for $65.
THe bad thing is that AMD has now dragged ATI down with it. Had Ati not made this silly merger with AMD we would have R600 now and Ati wouls still be competitive with Nvidia. Now it's too late for Ati, they're BK has been ensured too.
AMD BK Q2'08.
This comment has been removed by the author.
As the tests have shown, AMD gets eaten alive by Intel.
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/xeon-vs-opteron/index.x?pg=1
On the performance front, Intel's dual-core Xeon processors generally lead AMD's Opterons across a range of applications.
Intel's new quad-core Xeon 5355 CPUs are absolutely second to none among x86-compatible server/workstation processors, with no peer in sight.
I think I need to revise my estimation for this year; AMD's revenue has dropped so steeply YoY that their market share will be down to 15% by the end of the year.
Why is it that when Intel lowers their chip prices its a bad thing for Intel, but when AMD lowers their prices, its a good thing for AMD?
I enjoy watching you have to run around like an idiot covering all your bases, as Intel's processors are now kicking AMD's butts in both the home and server market.
Intel can EASILY afford to cut chip prices, AMD has a much tougher time doing so. To think otherwise is simply silly.
So Sharikou, when are you REALLY going to get your PhD?
Penix
Intel's infamous "yard sale" a few months back was a desparate attempt to sell idle inventory, which would otherwise just rot on shelves.
If they can sell there non Core based processors, while AMD is building an inventory in the channel, wouldn't that be impressive?
There is absolutely no reason to buy Intel, and the word was spreading quickly. Intel could either make no sales at all, or give their garbage away a an absurdly low price to try recoup some of their massive losses.
Which it looks to have done, all the while not producing 90nm processors and most likely ramping the Core Architecture more quickly.
AMD current price cuts are yet another stab at the already wounded Intel.
I have not seen Intel release any reports claiming they will miss their Q1 guidence.
Have you?
AMD has taken market share from Intel at an alarming rate, destoying their profitability.
Well, we will see shortly, but with the news floating around about AMD's inventory levels rising, and the continued price cuts, which analyst don't believe is working, I think your wrong.
AMD now holds the performance crown with their current generation of chips...
It does?
Even their budget line offers a minimal 2x advantage price to performance ratio.
Not sure about that, but if so it will be very short lived, I would say for about 13 days.
Again, there is no reason to buy Intel trash, and AMD is making sure it stays that way.
Like I said we will see in a few days.
While browsing thru SPECfp_2000 results, I happened to come across an interesting find.
AMD is claiming a 42% advantage over Clovertown in SPECfp_2000 with a 2.3GHz Barcelona Quadcore.
This is shown here, now although this slide does not state the 2.3GHz, I will continue to look for the one that does.
Now looking at the SPECfp_2000 score, you have 4 dual core AMD Opteron's (8214) running at 2.2GHz.
This system scored 146 in SPECfp_rate2000, the same test that Barcelona at 2.3GHz is scoring about 150.
I am making no claims, just pointing out what I found.
If someone could explain, or give there point of view it would be appreciated.
AMD is claiming a 42% advantage over Clovertown in SPECfp_2000 with a 2.3GHz Barcelona Quadcore.
Dude, AMD is claiming at least 40% lead over Intel in ALL benchmarks. K10 will be 3.6x of K8 dual in fp peformance.
enumae said...
If they can sell there non Core based processors, while AMD is building an inventory in the channel, wouldn't that be impressive?
Yes, but I never said Intel was successful with their "yard sale".
enumae said...
I have not seen Intel release any reports claiming they will miss their Q1 guidence.
Have you?
As Enron demonstrated, there are many, many ways to hide losses and make it appear highly profitable. Enron claimed revenues of $110 billion in 2000, then filed for bankruptcy in 2001. No, I have not seen a release from Intel which shows their losses, but do you think a company that so blatantly lies in their benchmark propaganda would show the real situation?
enumae said...
PENIX
AMD now holds the performance crown with their current generation of chips...
It does?
Yes it does. Please view this post.
enumae said...
PENIX
Even their budget line offers a minimal 2x advantage price to performance ratio.
Not sure about that, but if so it will be very short lived, I would say for about 13 days.
PENIX
Again, there is no reason to buy Intel trash, and AMD is making sure it stays that way.
Like I said we will see in a few days.
Then we are in agreement. Right now, AMD offers a 2x advantage price to performance ratio, and there is no reason to buy Intel trash.
"Sharikou, Ph. D said...
Dude, AMD is claiming at least 40% lead over Intel in ALL benchmarks. K10 will be 3.6x of K8 dual in fp peformance."
That is false. AMD never said a 40% lead over Intel in all benchmarks. That 40% was in a selected benchmark. Barcelona will only have a 8%~12% lead over current Intel C2D processors in general applications and games on a per clock basis. They will not even reach 50% run rate on Barcelona until 2H08. Dude, Get your facts straight.
Penix
Then we are in agreement. Right now, AMD offers a 2x advantage price to performance ratio, and there is no reason to buy Intel trash.
Well there is no reason to buy Netburst, but I do not agree with the 2x advantage.
Yes it does. Please view this post.
While it is impressive to see AMD have an advantage in Integer, your only showing three bench marks.
Thats a pretty narrow scope don't you think?
Yes, but I never said Intel was successful with their "yard sale".
"Excess semiconductor inventories in the global electronics supply chain declined to $2.5 billion in Q1, down 10.7 percent from $2.8 billion in the Q4 2006, according to a preliminary estimate from iSuppli's semiconductor inventory tracker service. This represents a major decrease from the recent high-point for excess semiconductor inventory in the Q3 2006. Surplus inventory in Q1 was down by 40.5 percent compared to $4.2 billion in Q3 2006, iSuppli said."
Link showing that it may have been succesful.
Sorry for jumping around.
Sharikou
AMD is claiming at least 40% lead over Intel in ALL benchmarks.
Well then this shouldn't be hard for you, provide a link stating that it is 40% in all benchmarks.
Sharikou is refering to this quote from Randy Allen, the corporate vice president for servers and workstations at AMD:
We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40 percent,” Allen said. The quad-core chip also will outperform AMD’s current dual-core Opterons on “floating point” mathematical calculations by a factor of 3.6 at the same clock rate, he said.
A "wide variety of workloads" is not "all benchmarks". Nor has any proof of this been provided. He probably means 40% performance per watt. It would be easy for them to promote this. They will show the excess heat generated by the FB-DIMMS etc.
Seems as AMD is getting hyrt by pricewar. Badly.
Is AMD Giving Up?
"AMD's move to cut costs seems to signal that the company may be pulling back on plans to claw market share away from Intel, a campaign that has been costly for both companies. While AMD fought a successful three-year campaign to grab market share, Intel began hitting back last summer, overhauling its lineup of processors and slashing prices."
"In its announcement Monday, AMD said its server and computer processor business is selling fewer chips--and getting less for each chip. Analysts blame an inventory clogged with less advanced processors."
Has anyone considered the possibility that AMD's growing inventory are Barcelona chips?
It seems to fit with Ruiz kind of thinking!
Jeach!
Has anyone considered the possibility that AMD's growing inventory are Barcelona chips?
Hector Ruiz (CRN Interview)
"...Over 2007, it will have a significant impact on what I call design wins..."
I don't see design wins as inventory.
Some joker wrote:Right now, AMD offers a 2x advantage price to performance ratio, and there is no reason to buy Intel trash.
Actually, if you look at the benchmarks in my 1st post, the 6600 @$308 and 6000+@239 are equivalent performance. Sure, you can cherry pick benchmarks where one spanks the other, but generally they are equivalent. Prices were NewEgg as of yesterday- no price shopping performed (note NewEgg 6000+ price looked to be a loss leader compared to other sites).
Based on the single data point, price/performance advantage for AMD was 1.3/1, not 2/1. Sorry- you must have an FPU bug.
That's his Internet ph.d talking...btw sharidouce - it's called junk mail for a reason - the ph.ds offered by those guys really aren't valid, but, eh, its your money...
enumae said...
Penix
Yes, but I never said Intel was successful with their "yard sale".
...
Link showing that it may have been successful.
This link provides industry references, not company specific references. It states a general inventory decline, but makes no claims to source to cause this trend. If you pay attention to the time frames you will see that there is a significant drop in inventory shortly after the Dell/AMD deal was announced. I do not believe the Intel "yard sale" was very successful. Intel trash is still trash even with a lower price tag.
penix
" I do not believe the Intel "yard sale" was very successful"
Why? By Autumn, Intel will only have Netburst Celerons left, current low-end (dualcore) Netburst will be replaced by Core2 based Pentiums. Do you really think they would do that with warehouses full of CPUs?
Also, it is AMD who has constantly being ramping its fabs and has said it's revenue dropped partly thanks to selling less CPUs than expected.
Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...
Some joker wrote:Right now, AMD offers a 2x advantage price to performance ratio, and there is no reason to buy Intel trash.
Actually, if you look at the benchmarks in my 1st post, the 6600 @$308 and 6000+@239 are equivalent performance. Sure, you can cherry pick benchmarks where one spanks the other, but generally they are equivalent. Prices were NewEgg as of yesterday- no price shopping performed (note NewEgg 6000+ price looked to be a loss leader compared to other sites).
Based on the single data point, price/performance advantage for AMD was 1.3/1, not 2/1. Sorry- you must have an FPU bug.
According to AnandTech, the E6700 and the X2 6000+ are the closest match.
"The Core 2 Duo E6700 is $70 more expensive than the X2 6000+ but it is Intel's closest competition to the new AMD processor." -AnandTech
Using pricing from NewEgg, as of today, without and price shopping, the Intel E6700 is $509 and the AMD X2 6000+ is $239. This gives a price to performance ratio of 2.13 to 1.
penix
"... as of today ..."
How many 6000+ CPUs will AMD sell during twelve days? After that you can get e6700 for ~$320 and e6600 for $230.
According to those benchmarks made in your linked article, e6600 isn't all that far off from 6000+, it mostly depends on what kind of applications you run. In gaming and most media processing Core2 would win.
Ho Ho said...
penix
"I do not believe the Intel "yard sale" was very successful"
Why? By Autumn, Intel will only have Netburst Celerons left, current low-end (dualcore) Netburst will be replaced by Core2 based Pentiums. Do you really think they would do that with warehouses full of CPUs?
I do not believe it was very successful because Netburst CPUs are still in ample supply. Newegg has Netburst CPUs available as low as $30, but they are still not selling.
Ho Ho said...
Also, it is AMD who has constantly being ramping its fabs...
What exactly are you trying to argue? Yes, AMD is constantly ramping up fabs to increase production to meet demand. It is common knowledge that AMD must continue to ramp up production so it can fully supply the industry when Intel goes belly up in 2008.
Ho Ho said...
...and has said it's revenue dropped partly thanks to selling less CPUs than expected.
AMD underestimated the effect Barcelona would have on sales of it's current CPUs. With Barcelona just around the corner, sales are lagging as people hold out for it's release.
Ho Ho said...
penix
"... as of today ..."
How many 6000+ CPUs will AMD sell during twelve days? After that you can get e6700 for ~$320 and e6600 for $230.
Probably not as many as AMD would like. I will not be purchasing one. With Barcelona right around the corner I would rather wait.
Penix
There is no debating with you.
All you see is AMD good, Intel bad.
penix
"I do not believe it was very successful because Netburst CPUs are still in ample supply"
What kind of logic is that? If having CPUs in stock means that they aren't selling then I think nothing sells all that good, besides the ones that are phased out like FX70 and s939 or special combo deals like the 3600+ with motherboard.
"What exactly are you trying to argue?"
I was trying to say that demand was not as big as AMD hoped.
Link from one of the earlier posts:
"“Revenues declined sharply quarter-over-quarter for the Computing Solutions segment, primarily due to lower overall average selling prices and significantly lower unit sales, especially in the resale channel,” the company said in a statement on Monday."
Emphasis mine.
"Intel goes belly up in 2008"
How sure you are about that? Sure enough to make a bet?
"AMD underestimated the effect Barcelona would have on sales of it's current CPUs. With Barcelona just around the corner, sales are lagging as people hold out for it's release."
This is one theory. Another theory is that people simply get Intel CPUs since they are becoming cheaper and are availiable now. AMD only has some very rough marketing numbers that nobody can decipher clearly.
"With Barcelona right around the corner I would rather wait"
You are definitely not the only one who wouldn't want to get AMD right now and either waits as you or gets Intel. Either way AMD will have its inventory piling up with CPUs that few people want. Remember, K8 will still be in production for over a year.
enumae said...
Penix
There is no debating with you.
All you see is AMD good, Intel bad.
I am simply giving an unbiased interpretation the available data.
penix wrote:
"The Core 2 Duo E6700 is $70 more expensive than the X2 6000+ but it is Intel's closest competition to the new AMD processor." -AnandTech
Iused TechReport because that's what our humble host linked to. So let's read your link, shall we? I see you read as far as AnandTech's quote stating 6700 is equivalent to the 6000+, but let's look past page 1 and see what we find.
Ignoring power consumption, there were 20 benchmarks run. For 6600 vs. 6000+:
+6600 won 12 with avg margin of 6%
+6000+ won 8 with avg margin of 8%
I would call that pretty equivalent, wouldn't you? Average gain with 6600 is .8%.
How about 6700 vs. 6000+?
+6700 won 18 with avg margin of 12%
+6000+ won 2 with avg margin of 6%
Sounds like the 6700 thumps the 6000+, unless you need to run Quicktime H.264 encoding or Cinebench 9.
So for price performance, the best available price for 6000+ today is... 308/239(1.008)= 1.28/1
Sorry, read your own links if you want to support your argument.
Penix
Intel "trash", is unbiased?
Almost every post you make is Intel "negative comment".
I am not trying to be mean or rude, but you come across about as unbiased as Sharikou.
Ho Ho said...
penix
"I do not believe it was very successful because Netburst CPUs are still in ample supply"
What kind of logic is that? If having CPUs in stock means that they aren't selling then I think nothing sells all that good, besides the ones that are phased out like FX70 and s939 or special combo deals like the 3600+ with motherboard.
In stock and ample supply after a blow out clearance are not the same. You do not appear to be educated in the concept of supply and demand. When a product is in ample supply, the price drops. When the supply is low, the price goes up. The price of Intel chips is continuing to drop, meaning that there is still ample supply.
Ho Ho said...
penix
"Intel goes belly up in 2008"
How sure you are about that? Sure enough to make a bet?
Intel is heading for BK, but 2008 is a long way off. A lot can still change. Intel may get sold before they go BK. The 2008 prediction is a likely scenario, but not the only.
Ho Ho said...
You are definitely not the only one who wouldn't want to get AMD right now and either waits as you or gets Intel.
I wait because I am not in immediate need. If I were, I would make the only wise choice and buy AMD since their price to performance ratio is higher.
Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...
So for price performance, the best available price for 6000+ today is... 308/239(1.008)= 1.28/1
Conceded. AMD leads with a price to performance ratio of 1.28 with the X2 6000+.
penix
"In stock and ample supply after a blow out clearance are not the same"
Of cource they are not and I didn't claim it either. It just amazed me that jou could make a conclusion just by looking what CPUs are in stock at newegg.
"When the supply is low, the price goes up"
So what made AMD to drop its CPU prices by 40%+? Too much inventory or too little sales? It can't be just "for fun", especially considering how bad AMD financial situation is.
"Intel is heading for BK"
Ok, if you say so. Could you give some signs of that happening? Perhaps operating loss, big layoffs or anything else our host has predicted for over a year now.
"AMD leads with a price to performance ratio of 1.28 with the X2 6000+"
... and will do it for less than two weeks.
enumae said...
Almost every post you make is Intel "negative comment".
I only give praise when it is due. When Intel does something worthy of praise, I give it to them the same.
enumae said...
I am not trying to be mean or rude, but you come across about as unbiased as Sharikou.
I do not see this as mean or rude, because Sharikou is providing an equal playing field. The front page even has a link to "Anti Pervasive64", which is a blog in direct competition.
Ho Ho said...
penix
"In stock and ample supply after a blow out clearance are not the same"
Of cource they are not and I didn't claim it either. It just amazed me that jou could make a conclusion just by looking what CPUs are in stock at newegg.
I looked at more than Newegg. According to price trends, the price of the P3 is above that of the P4 and continuing rise. Why? Because there are very few P3 left, but ample supply of P4.
Ho Ho said...
So what made AMD to drop its CPU prices by 40%+? Too much inventory or too little sales? It can't be just "for fun", especially considering how bad AMD financial situation is.
This has been covered several times before. The price cut is a strategic move to continue to take market share from Intel.
Ho Ho said...
penix
"Intel is heading for BK"
Ok, if you say so. Could you give some signs of that happening? Perhaps operating loss, big layoffs or anything else our host has predicted for over a year now.
The signs are there, you are just choosing to ignore them.
penix
" The price cut is a strategic move to continue to take market share from Intel."
Do you think it is wise when it has such a huge impact on AMD profitability and it still can't sell enough CPUs?
"The signs are there"
Can you make a list? I could make one for AMD but I'm sure that neither will BK any time soon where soon is 4-5 years.
ho ho said...
Can you make a list? I could make one for AMD but I'm sure that neither will BK any time soon where soon is 4-5 years.
Thou assumeth too much!
If Barcelona is just 8 to 12% faster than Clovertown per clock (as Shelby has claimed), AMD might really be in financial trouble. What's more, they may not be able to raise capital, as their new substantial core upgrade would take 3 years--not a very pretty picture.
If Barcelona is a bust, the only hope for AMD is to be bought out by someone like Samsung who has the mussle to take onto Intel.
A close friend of mine, senior manager in Intel sales has perspective re: this latest round of battle between Intel/AMD.
Prior to 4Q05 Intel miss, the environment at Intel was tangent strategy such as Viiv, beat Sun (accomplished), end user marketing, mobile innovation, etc. Headcount increases(very easy), job redundancy was evident in S&M.
The cracks appeared in server share and ASP as Intel was caught off guard by poor netburst strategy among other things. Since the reorg (not handled very well/decreased moral) and price war, the renewed focus is paying dividends. Customer wins and improved roadmap are strategic focus as wimax/other strategies become secondary(not forgotten). The giant is awoken as the US after Pearl Harbor. However, AMD needs Intel and converse also. Even employees realize this. Both companies have strengths requiring the other to innovate.
Intel marketing machine is a monster (#5 brand in the world/ worth $32billion, AMD not even near top 100, however INTEL dropped from $35 billion in 05). x486/Pentium 1-3 dominance continuing to pay dividends 10 years later.
On consumer side, case studies show brand dominance puts Intel in leading position even with competitive AMD chip. Market followers need superior offerings for years to erode market leadership. Sustained 2-5 year leadership (depending on brand), not occasional 1-1.5 years leadership. Microsoft(#2 brand) vs. Linux, even more lopsided, for example.
Research indicates consumers walk into Best Buy/Circuit City/CompUSA/ preferring Intel by a massive margin (10 to 1), but purchase AMD system many times due to price/performance/education (ratio decreases significantly). Enterprise server business is more sensitive to price/performance ratio, although still in Intel favor, hence where AMD has made inroads.
Example: My doctor brother (complete non tech) didn't want to buy HP/Sony/Dell system, he wanted Intel system; that is the power of brand dominance from Pentium days. Intel brand more dominant than even OEMs brands.
As in the past, Intel seems to have responded in time from marketing perspective to prevent further brand erosion. AMD system on Best Buy shelf must vastly outperform Intel to change the 10 to 1 to more favorable ratio en masse.
Long term 75/25 mix is realistic as Intel continues to exploit its process and brand advantage. Price war continues from Intel as long as stockholders stay on the boat or AMD is marginalized, which seems to be happening. Innovation continues as industry matures and both become significant dividend paying stocks.
You can debate the technical merits of product roadmaps, tech specs, and both sides will always have merit. Those who buy from Newegg, read Tom's hardware/Anadtech remain in the minority and marginalized due to Intel $200 million ad campaigns.
Link to brand info:
http://tinyurl.com/yt9v95
Ho Ho said...
penix
"The price cut is a strategic move to continue to take market share from Intel."
Do you think it is wise when it has such a huge impact on AMD profitability and it still can't sell enough CPUs?
Market share is a vital key in the success of AMD. I have complete trust that AMD will continue to make the wise decisions that have gotten them this far.
Ho Ho said...
Can you make a list? I could make one for AMD but I'm sure that neither will BK any time soon where soon is 4-5 years.
No, I will not waste my time making a list for you. Going forward I suggest you try to keep up by at least reading all of Sharikou's entries.
penix face said: This has been covered several times before. The price cut is a strategic move to continue to take market share from Intel.
AMD declared it is seeing significant decline in volume sales.
Gartner is saying that AMD may have lost marketshare in Q1'08.
The disastrous 'strategic' move to gain market share didn't work. a ridiculous price of half what Intel offers for the same performance simple means that 1) nobody wants an Athlon, 2) Everyone wants an Intel, 3) AMD's pricing is now primarily to clear inventory rather than take market share.
whatever you say doesn't matter, AMD already admitted defeat. You and Sharikou are just like looking like idiots contradicting what AMD themselves said.
Penix head said: Conceded. AMD leads with a price to performance ratio of 1.28 with the X2 6000+.
you AMD droids must be so happy with such an achievement. price/perf lead! Good for you!
I bet AMD must be selling tons of these 6000+. Demand must be skyrocketting and AMD can't keep up. AMD has been very quiet about its revenue and sales. They must be doing great.
Also, can anyone please compute what the price to performance ratio is for a QX6800 against a competing product from AMD? Thanks.
Predictions fanboys..
AMD has already annouced their disaster of a quarter. We can debate for another few days as to how bloody it is but its clear to me. AMD is well on the way to a red 2007. To survive into 2008 they will need to cut 65nm ramp and delay 45nm development.. Sounds like a BK trend
INTEL will have a soft quarter with revenues and profits coming in very low. I expect they will come on the low side but the big difference. They are spending like crazy ramping 45nm and getting many 45nm products ready AND STILL MAKING MONEY. CLearly not on the way to BK.
Can't wait for the PhD pretender to spin this one.. LOL
INTEL will have a soft quarter with revenues and profits coming in very low. I expect they will come on the low side but the big difference. They are spending like crazy ramping 45nm and getting many 45nm products ready AND STILL MAKING MONEY. CLearly not on the way to BK.
Intel themselves predicted in their Q4'06 results revenue between 8.7 and 9.3bn. Something in between those lines and a profit of well over $1bn should be expected.
I'm pretty sure that AMD is dead, sure K8 was good but no really, it's way too old, unless something strange happens and AMD is way off the performance band and Barcelona becomes a world beater, it will most likely just become another Transmeta.
AMD went lax. They had a great window of opportunity. When Intel went 90nm and released Prescott they knew it wasn't going to clock nearly as high as Intel wanted.
Intel realised this, and quickly started working on what became the Core Micro-Architecture, and it's sucessor Nehalem. But these wouldn't be ready for years.
AMD, OTOH, didn't need high clockspeeds, and they had an awesome dual core solution. They had an iron grip on performance in desktop and servers. There was nothing Intel could do about that until 2006. The Pentium D and the original Paxville dual core Xeons were a joke. Intel was vulnerable.
But, in reality, AMD failed to captalise on the golden opportunity they had. We saw market share gains from 2004 -> 2006 of less than five percent from AMD.
Now Intel has it's new products out that are clearly faster, and have established themselves at releasing new technology at such a pace that they'll never have another Prescott and that AMD will not be able to catch up again.
AMD is losing market share and posting losses, Intel isn't going to stop until AMD is under a pile of rubble.
Tom said...
... a lot of stuff about Intel branding...
Your right Tom that Intel's brand is extremely recognized and consumers very loyal to that brand.
Just yesterday I asked each my parents, sister and an older lady-friend two questions?
1. Do you have an Intel in your PC or laptop?
The general answer was hesitation/pause and replied to the fact that it was a 100% IBM compatible... not a clone.
2. Do you have a Pentium in your PC or laptop?
The answer was a quick YES! With an attempt at giving a precision to the type of Pentium they had.
So what I don't understand is that it isn't the 'Intel' brand that is strong, it is the 'Pentium' one. So if Intel has changed from Pentium to Itanium and Core, why has their brand value only dropped by 9%? It has to be because they are still selling a shit load of Pentiums.
Roborat, Ph. D. said...
whatever you say doesn't matter, AMD already admitted defeat. You and Sharikou are just like looking like idiots contradicting what AMD themselves said.
You look like a HUGE idiot! AMD never admitted defeat, they are just re-strategizing and/or restructuring... But hey, be in denial and interpret it the way you want if you like, just don't try to impose your views on everyone else.
lex said...
To survive into 2008 they will need to cut 65nm ramp and delay 45nm development.. Sounds like a BK trend
You sure must have inside connections for a comment like that. Typical Inteler type of propaganda. Do you think if they spent billions to go 65nm, now that they are there and expect cost reductions they will shy away from spending a few additional millions and stay 90nm? You probably mean they will cut 90nm production... but then again you probably don't know what you really mean yourself, you probably just wrote that because someone else wrote in in another blog!
If AMD was to delay 45nm, I'd be all for it. AMD can win this battle without winning in the nanometer race. Especially when Intel keeps adding the amount of cache they do to their hacked Core architecture just to keep up with AMD's 'amazing' architecture.
Randy Allen said...
AMD went lax.
I agree with you! But then again (as someone else has said) I trust the AMD management, so they must have a reason to justify this. Only the future will reveal if this was the move that hurt AMD.
I wish someone from the press would have enough guts to ask Ruiz why and to elaborate on the reasoning as to why a new core wasn't released earlier.
jeach!
"Especially when Intel keeps adding the amount of cache they do to their hacked Core architecture just to keep up with AMD's 'amazing' architecture."
Do you know that when AMD moves to 45nm it will tripple the cache size of its CPUs?
"why a new core wasn't released earlier."
My guess is it simply wasn't ready, at least not for mass availiability.
Much better question is why they haven't released any benchmark information about their CPUs. My guess is that their first CPUs are not exactly too big threat against Intel highest end CPUs, mostly thanks to clock speed difference.
In the mean time they have released x2 6000+. From what I remember it recieved a lot less press attention than other AMD highest end CPUs just a year ago. As someone said, no press is better for AMD for now. It doesn't look good when you release your highest performing CPU and it can't fight that well against competition.
tripple the cache size
Tripple... sounds impressive! In about 18 months, AMD's stock will have trippled too (wow, a whole 300%).
Use real values, especially a comparative one... that's what is important.
Also, on top of having relatively small cache sizes compared to Intel, AMD's should have a much smaller die footprint due to its compression technology.
jeach!
"In about 18 months, AMD's stock will have trippled too"
That wouldn't be that difficult. It would only be 50% rise from where it was a year ago.
"Also, on top of having relatively small cache sizes compared to Intel, AMD's should have a much smaller die footprint due to its compression technology."
How was that saying, "A large cache hides a multitude of sins"
You mean zram? Well, that won't be here for a while and I still have some doubts about its performance.
Also K10 will have ~291mm^2 die area, Kentsfield has 2x144mm^2=288mm^2. K10 has 2+2+0.5=4.5MiB of cache, Kentsfield 2*(4+0.125)=8.25MiB. That means even though Intel has almost twice the cache size it still has smaller die area.
Ho Ho said...
Also K10 will have ~291mm^2 die area, Kentsfield has 2x144mm^2=288mm^2. K10 has 2+2+0.5=4.5MiB of cache, Kentsfield 2*(4+0.125)=8.25MiB. That means even though Intel has almost twice the cache size it still has smaller die area.
And let's not forget the yield impact of the die size difference. Assuming AMD and Intel both get .1 defects/cm^2, and neglecting the extra metal layer yield impact, Barcelona yields 148 dpw (3mm edge exclusion, Murphy model). Intel ends up with 365 dpw (182 Quadcores).
So with the MCM approach AND more cache, Intel yields 23% more usable quadcores per wafer. To get equivalent dpw in the above scenario, Intel would have to have 2.5X worse defect density-unlikely to say the least.
And let's not forget the yield impact of the die size difference. Assuming AMD and Intel both get .1 defects/cm^2, and neglecting the extra metal layer yield impact, Barcelona yields 148 dpw (3mm edge exclusion, Murphy model). Intel ends up with 365 dpw (182 Quadcores).
So with the MCM approach AND more cache, Intel yields 23% more usable quadcores per wafer. To get equivalent dpw in the above scenario, Intel would have to have 2.5X worse defect density-unlikely to say the least.
The core size is not officially known. There are a few contradicting sources such as this one which is at 283mm2 (3% smaller).
Second, Intel's is not a true quad core and since they will be coming out with their quad core with IMC, their die size should grow and yield shrink.
But anyway, ny point exactly! Intel requires massive cache sizes in order to compete with AMD's superior architecture. Which in the end forces them to spend billions in process shrinks to reduce their die size.
"Assuming AMD and Intel both get .1 defects/cm^2, and neglecting the extra metal layer yield impact, Barcelona yields 148 dpw (3mm edge exclusion, Murphy model)."
I suppose in addition to the 148 good quad-core dies, there will be quite a few good dual-core dies available as well.
The difference between 182 and 148 quad-core dies is about 68 Conroe dies. Lets say AMD could get 40 DC dies out of the 60 some defect QC dies. This means Intel's advantage is only 28 out of 365 DC dpw, or less than 8%.
Now, your estimate was based on ~300mm^2 K10 die size, which may be greater than the actual value (~280mm^2). If using the lower value, number of good QC dies becomes 159, still lower than 182, but only 15% less. Plus the ~40 DC dies, however, Intel's advantage is now only 6 out of 365 DC dpw, or less than 1/60.
Remember, all these come under K10's better performance and extra costs of MCM packaging.
jeach!
"But anyway, ny point exactly! Intel requires massive cache sizes in order to compete with AMD's superior architecture"
You missed my point. My point was, that Intel uses considerably less transistors on the "real" things like FPU, ALU, branch predictors etc than AMD but still has a CPU able to compete really well.
abinstein
"I suppose in addition to the 148 good quad-core dies, there will be quite a few good dual-core dies available as well."
Does anyone know that AMD is able to disable entire cores of their quads to make them work as dualcores?
"Plus the ~40 DC dies, however, Intel's advantage is now only 6 out of 365 DC dpw, or less than 1/60.
Remember, all these come under K10's better performance and extra costs of MCM packaging."
Of course, this is assuming 60% of the defective QC dies can work properly as DC ones. If this is not the case, then given your assumptions a K10 QC will have 15%-22% less yield than a Kentsfield.
Even at the lower estimate of 283mm^2, K10 is a very large design. At 45nm it would be ~210mm^2, better but still large. However, this won't be much of a problem since K10 QC is aimed at high-end desktop and server. For mid-low end desktop & mobile, a K10 DC of ~150mm^2 will be almost as cheap as Conroe but better performing.
"Does anyone know that AMD is able to disable entire cores of their quads to make them work as dualcores?"
I know Intel can disable half of shared L2 cache in Core 2 or one of the dual cores and still sell a working chip.
But of course there's no guarantee that AMD can do something Intel could 16 months ago.
abinstein
"K10 DC of ~150mm^2 will be almost as cheap as Conroe but better performing."
I'll let benchmarks decide that.
"I know Intel can disable half of shared L2 cache in Core 2 or one of the dual cores and still sell a working chip."
Disabling cache is one thing, disabling entire cores an entirely different thing. Cache is built with redundancy in mind.
"Disabling cache is one thing, disabling entire cores an entirely different thing. Cache is built with redundancy in mind."
Cache is built with redundancy in mind, while x86 multi-cores ARE redundancy!
The cores in any x86 dual-core chips are almost independent from each other. The closest "attachment" between the two cores is C2D's shared cache.
abinstein
"The cores in any x86 dual-core chips are almost independent from each other.
Ok, then why has neither AMD nor Intel released any crippled chips as singlecores? They should both have loads of dualcores with one core not functioning, why waste them? After all, they are already selling CPUs with some cache disabled as lower end ones.
"The closest "attachment" between the two cores is C2D's shared cache."
What about K10? They share memory controller and are attatched to the same crossbar. Things are considerably more difficult there.
"Ok, then why has neither AMD nor Intel released any crippled chips as singlecores? They should both have loads of dualcores with one core not functioning, why waste them?"
First, whether AMD sells a dual-core die as single-core or not, you might never know.
Second, defect is not the only reason of bad dies. It's possible that the defective dies are so few that it doesn't worth the effort to collect and remark them. This can happen to K10, too, if AMD's 65nm is as good as its 90nm.
"What about K10? They share memory controller and are attatched to the same crossbar."
The cores of K10 share L3 cache and the crossbar. Memory controller connects through the crossbar.
Ho Ho, I just got this from 5min of google search:
3700+ not a real San Diego
The above link is Google's cache. The original article was posted on AMD's forum and is now deleted.
The original text is as follow:
May 26 2006, 02:06 PM
I ordered a 3700+ from zipzoomfly.com. I got it out and wrote down the info.
Its reads on the IHS:
ADA3700DKA5CF
CCBWE O544VPMW
1377256L50356
I found out that it is not a real San Deigo, its a Toledo with a core disabled.
I dont want that. I wanted a real 3700+. Who do I need to contact, because zipzoomfly has nothing to do with this becuase this is what AMD sold them. Its an AMD issue and I am looking for some help here.
Thanks.
nagaty_h
May 26 2006, 02:19 PM
its exactly the same as a san diego.. do u have a reason not to want the toledo?
Silk_the_Absent1
May 26 2006, 02:21 PM
Functionally, it is exactly the same as a San Diego, although it may run a degree or two cooler due to the larger surface area from the other core (which is disabled).
-Adam
This should prove that your doubt is unfounded/unnecessary.
Post a Comment
<< Home