Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
AMD has everything in place. Capacity, OEMs, channel, design wins, K10 will simply wipe out Intel. Wonder why DELL has just released a 2P Opteron server called PE 2970?
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 4/12/2007 09:52:00 AM
36 Comments:
"He acknowledged that much depends on applications but claimed that Intel only showed numbers based on benchmarks rather on real world apps. It only showed benchmarks that favoured its case, he said."
At least Intel shows something. AMD just lets marketing to talk.
"And Amato claimed: "We aren't losing market share at all." ยต"
I believe it after others have put their numbers together.
Sharikou, PLEASE stop with the Intel BK claims. If you really believe it, it's insane. If you're saying it for effect, it's just dumb and losing its cache.
I love AMD and hope and expect Barcelona to kick butt and hope AMD wins billions from INTC in the lawsuit, but Intel isn't going bankrupt now, next year, or anytime in the next decade.
BlueVetteKid said...
Sharikou, PLEASE stop with the Intel BK claims. If you really believe it, it's insane. If you're saying it for effect, it's just dumb and losing its cache.
In 2000, Enron claimed revenues of $111 billion dollars. In 2001 they filed for bankruptcy.
UBS lowered its first-quarter earnings estimate on chipmaker Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile , Research) to reflect the impact of a price war and slower desktop shipments.
The brokerage cut its forecast to 20 cents a share from 22 cents. It also lowered its first-quarter revenue forecast on Intel to $8.78 billion from $9.01 billion.
Read it here
So Intelers, not confirmed yet, but it looks like Intel will be hurt too! A quarter of a billion down when the C2D is supposedly making a killing and taking market share?
Should we predict a whole billion or more for 2007 that Intel will lose in revenue?
It will only get MUCH worst for them after the 2nd quarter!
I predict a whole 2 billion for all of 2007 myself.
Now what was it that you were saying about a GPU and a CPU being too large to be released in a single socket?
Not unless you have a parter like IBM which can show you how to create 3-D chip.
So we might have an 8-core K10 and graphics processor stacked on top of each other... who knows!
Sharikou said: "Once K10 is out, all Core 2 will be sold at below $100."
Once K10 is out, AMD will frag itself with K10. 99% of all AMD K8's will be obsolete and no one will buy them. And Intel's C2D will frag 90% of AMD's products once K10 is out. massive inventory resulting in AMD BK in Q2'08.
I don't think you can argue this reasoning because its yours Sharikou. lol.
Jeach
A quarter of a billion down when the C2D is supposedly making a killing and taking market share?
Intel's projected revenue was between 8.7 and 9.3 Billion for Q1 2007, now looking at your link to Reuters, and even if it ends up being correct and they come in at 8.78 Billion, that is still 80 Million above the low in the projected revenue.
This is what I find funny...
You are trying to compare Intel, who may come in about 1% above its projected revenue, to AMD who is supposed to come in about 24% below it projected revenue.
Then in the same sentence question if Intel is taking market share away from AMD, now I am not an accountant but if one company is able to meet projected revenues and another misses by 24% during a pricewar... I am gonna have to believe that Intel has indeed gained market share.
Penix said: In 2000, Enron claimed revenues of $111 billion dollars. In 2001 they filed for bankruptcy.
Enron trades energy. It doesn't manufacture anything. It can make up numbers without showing any product.
Intel manufactures tangible products.
Unless 80% of computers don't have CPU's made by Intel and are running on magic dust, i say your stupid logic has no basis for any intelligent argument. For your own sake, stop using Enron as an example.
Roborat, Ph. D. said...
Once K10 is out, AMD will frag itself with K10. 99% of all AMD K8's will be obsolete and no one will buy them. And Intel's C2D will frag 90% of AMD's products once K10 is out. massive inventory resulting in AMD BK in Q2'08.
You make a good argument argument, but you missed a vital piece of information. The K8 only has a slight advantage over the C2D. Price will drive their sales in the low to mid markets. Sales for the K8 and C2D will slow once K10 is released, but they will not lie idle on shelves like the P4.
Roborat, Ph. D. said...
Enron trades energy. It doesn't manufacture anything. It can make up numbers without showing any product.
Your response make it obvious that you are completely ignorant of the details of the Enron case. You cannot simply "make up" these numbers.
Roborat, Ph. D. said...
...Unless 80% of computers don't have CPU's made by Intel and are running on magic dust...
Exactly, all these computers are not running on magic dust. They use electricity. Enron had product, customers and huge numbers, yet they still went bankrupt.
penix said:"..You cannot simply "make up" these numbers."
*sigh*
and what do you think Enron did by making false earnings reports?
please do tell me.
enumae, I am no good at economy. But if Intel is only 1% above their projected low revenue and amd is 24% below, this means that AMD customers are not switching to intel.
If we are more optimistic for the AMD side, we can say that even intel are below their median projected revenue. This puts intel at same foot with AMD, customers are also waiting for next price drops and/or better performance/price ratio.
Roborat, Ph. D. said...
penix said:"..You cannot simply "make up" these numbers."
*sigh*
and what do you think Enron did by making false earnings reports?
please do tell me.
They did not simply "make up" numbers as you claim. The numbers were all real, they were just structured in a way to hide their expenses by putting debt and losses in offshore companies, therefore claiming only profit on the books.
Roborat, you are an ignorant fool.
Al-Saqer
This puts intel at same foot with AMD, customers are also waiting for next price drops and/or better performance/price ratio.
While that is a valid point, I don't feel that many people follow this information as closely as we do. Most people would not know about price cuts, they just see there Sunday paper and all of a sudden the computers are about $50 cheaper than the week before, at the same time we are in the slow part of the year for sales.
Looking at Q1 2006 vs Q1 2007 (projected), if Intel comes in at $8.78 Billion, that is a drop of about 2% YOY, AMD on the other hand if they come in at $1.225 Billion that is a drop of about 8% YOY.
At the same time you have to factor in that AMD now has ATI. If you were to factor what ATI had made last year in Q1 ($591 Million), and add that to the $1.33 Billion AMD made last year, you would get $1.921 Billion, now your looking at YOY drop of about 36%.
There is an article about retail market share here, and this could a part of why AMD is going to miss there projected revenue.
This would make sense since AMD failed to supply the channel with processors due to OEM's demand. That was talked about here.
So I guess my view is that if you factor in what these articles are talking about, I believe AMD is loosing market share.
Not one time have I come to this blog and not laughed. Thanks for letting your fantasy world brighten up my all-to-real one.
You are trying to compare Intel, who may come in about 1% above its projected revenue, to AMD who is supposed to come in about 24% below it projected revenue.
See this is what pisses me off so much about Wall St. A company is allowed to report that their Q1 revenues will be 100 Billion next year.
Then mid-way the get to readjust if they want to 90 Billion.
And just before the quarter end, they readjust to 80 Billion.
Then you have moron analysts, newspapers and CNBC who'll report that revenues came in at 83 Billion, 3.6% above projections!
Jeach!
For some reason I don't think I am able to follow your last post.
Intel did not adjust their projected earnings.
Please explain.
"Intel has succeeded in bloodying AMD's nose," "But it's not a knockout punch, and it sure as hell isn't a killer punch."
LOL Sharikou PhD = Sharikou "Ph"ony "D"octorate.
Listen carefully what is said and what is NOT
AMD's European technical director, said: "Barcelona is an architecture that must be faster."
Why does he say "must" versus "is" It must be faster because if it isn't they AMD is finished. While if he says it "is" that means he has seen the data and based on real measurements "is." Must is hope, required, management FUD of what is desired vs. what reality is. Its like Hector saying we "must make money" versus we "are" making money. Notice he can't use that verb. Listen to the verb used fanbois.
He laters goes on record saying.. " much depends on applications." Does that mean he has seen the benchmarks and that Barcelona doesn't win ALL benchmarks. How can something soo good with better cache and faster cache, 4 cores on a single piece of silicon, with IMC not be better then INTEL Core2 across teh board.
Your claims of INTEL BK are so ludicrious it ain't worth more then a laugh.
Next week AMD will annouce huge drop in sales due to huge drops in prices as they field a dog of a processor. THey have inventory sitting as Dell sales tank and channel has turned to INTEL. The end is huge losses. To avoid burning thru all their cash they will cut 500M. For a company of a few tens of thousand you can't layoff to many people. The reductions will come from delaying capital expenditures on 65nm ramp and 45nm development that will further result in a delay of both thrusts. It means AMD will fall so far behind that they have begun the 1st step of becoming fabless due to this huge strategic mistake of buying ATI.
Next week INTEL will annouce a drop in revenue and will still have about 700 million or so in profits. That is after continued spending on 45nm builds. Imagine that hundreds of millions of profits while equiping 4 45nm factories that will enable penrym/nehalem ramps. In the worst case situation their is no ASP increase with Penrym/nehalem INTEL still makes a profit.
Sorry the only one that is BK is you and your Phony Doctorate. Pray tell what do you have a PhD in and where/when and what your dissertation was on. I recalled you made reference to some cerebral theoretical BS.
"Pray tell what do you have a PhD in and where/when and what your dissertation was on. I recalled you made reference to some cerebral theoretical BS."
This will never happen because he doesn't have a ph.d. He is not only a poor "analyst" he is a liar - I actually feel sorry for the people who believe what he says - just shows how easy they're snowed....
enumae said...
Jeach!
For some reason I don't think I am able to follow your last post.
Intel did not adjust their projected earnings.
I'm not sure if they did or not, but that is why I used fake numbers in order to generalize my point.
I'm just saying that all those guestimate numbers are bogus except for the real ones.
I watch CNBC like 15 hours per day. More often then not, they will anounce a companies numbers and say that it is "in line with expectations". But in reality, the company changed the expectation downwards a few weeks back. Those investors who don't know that (just about everyone) erroneously believe that the company did well, but in fact they were down.
The SEC should BAN all corporate guidance!!!
Anyway, I wasn't targeting Intel (this time) :)
What will happen to the stockpiles of Intel Xeon and Pentium 4 netburst CPU's (see url below) that have been priced for next to nothing but still doesn't move?
http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/
Will they eventually end up in the landfill? I don't think anyone would want them even if they were given away for free.
jeach said: They did not simply "make up" numbers as you claim. The numbers were all real, they were just structured in a way to hide their expenses by putting debt and losses in offshore companies, therefore claiming only profit on the books.
OMG. this is like talking to a 5 year old. hiding expenses and debt IS making up numbers in financial terms.
just to go back to context with what we were arguing about. making up numbers doesn't come easy for a manufacturing company like intel who's shipped products are out there with known pricing. Any market researcher can estimate Intel's earnings by looking at tangible products.
Enron on the other hand doesn't make anything, trades on a product that they don't produce on variable prices that change on every transaction.
again, citing Enron as an example of what might happen to intel in this era of tightly scrutinized accounting market is just plain stupid.
Roborat, you are an ignorant fool.
you're mistaking me for someone who cares about what you think.
"He laters goes on record saying.. " much depends on applications." Does that mean he has seen the benchmarks and that Barcelona doesn't win ALL benchmarks."
What he says is truth. It's true that AMD executives usually speak of truth, whereas Intel ones often lies marketing BS. Performance is app dependent. Core 2 doesn't win everything compared to K8 clock-for-clock. Likewise, K10 won't be faster on all things compared to Core 2.
Roborat, Ph. D. said...
OMG. this is like talking to a 5 year old.
Talking to a 5 year old is better than talking to the wrong person? But now that you've brought me into this, I'll add my two cents...
hiding expenses and debt IS making up numbers in financial terms.
I think you and Penix both mean pretty much the same thing, your just both using different terminologies and understandings.
making up numbers doesn't come easy for a manufacturing company like intel who's shipped products are out there with known pricing.
Your blind to reality! Making up numbers isn't easier or harder depending on your industry or sector. It becomes easier or harder based on size. Both Enron and Intel are HUGE companies, thus they can manipulate numbers pretty much as desired... 'if' they did that is.
Any market researcher can estimate Intel's earnings by looking at tangible products.
What world are you living in? Market researchers don't do research to estimate numbers. Market analysts don't know the industry to make upgrades/downgrades. These guys usually understand as much about these companies and the industry as if I was to give my grandmother a 6 month crash course. The only exception is that my grandmother would make better predictions and upgrades/downgrades.
Why do you think that almost NO ONE ever sees a company when they are on the verge of bankruptcy?
Why do you think analysts are wrong 50% of the time on upgrades/downgrades?
Why do analysts wait until a stock is in a 'trend' before making a new price prediction?
You see, Morgan Stanley, UBS, JP Morgan, RBC, Citi, etc, etc all hire fast talking people with a nice diploma on their walls. Then they take them and try to train them to their respective industry/sector.
I on the other hand, would hire someone like 'Dirk Myers' and train then on the financial side of things.
Enron on the other hand doesn't make anything, trades on a product that they don't produce on variable prices that change on every transaction.
A service company is like a product company! You can cheat in any one of them.
again, citing Enron as an example of what might happen to intel in this era of tightly scrutinized accounting market is just plain stupid.
No it's not stupid! You turn your face on reality. "tightly scrutinized"? Show me proof of who does the checking, when, where, how and when! Telling me that companies must sign a paper that says "I didn't do anything wrong... and don't plan to" (Orbains Oxley) is not 'tight' scrutiny!
Jeach! said...Your blind to reality! Making up numbers isn't easier or harder depending on your industry or sector. It becomes easier or harder based on size. Both Enron and Intel are HUGE companies, thus they can manipulate numbers pretty much as desired... 'if' they did that is.
While I am not sure if Intel ever did that, but last i recall is that AMD made up the number in Q4 portraying good quarter before obtaining the loan that AMD much needed, and only several weeks later announce bad news. I really wonder why AMD is not getting sued for this.
While I am not sure if Intel ever did that, but last i recall is that AMD made up the number in Q4 portraying good quarter before obtaining the loan that AMD much needed, and only several weeks later announce bad news. I really wonder why AMD is not getting sued for this.
What are you talking about Pointer?
AMD never made up any numbers! They just changed their corporate guidance downwards after getting their loan.
But that was my point exactly! Guidance should be banned on Wall St.
You've got to remember that YOU never knew the real numbers and nor did they have any obligations to report them to you, shareholders or the public.
And to think that AMD did not disclose any internal/privileged information to its lender is completely and absolutely RIDICULOUS! The lender had all the numbers they needed, forecast projections, product information that the public doesn't even know about yet (K10) and anything else they wanted to know.
Do you actually think that a company is going to blindly lend out a few billions? Do you think they just ask AMD for numbers and take their word for it? NO! They took ALL the numbers and ran multiple scenarios before making a decision to lend AMD any money!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeech, I'd really like to know what "Orbains Oxley" is. I've never heard of it.
Since you are well informed in financial matters from watching TV 15 hours a day please help educate me.
The only "Oxley" I've heard of is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Yep, that's the one :)
Fever + medication = Orbains Oxley
Ant that's no good, considering I'm flying to Mexico tomorrow!!
AMD never made up any numbers! They just changed their corporate guidance downwards after getting their loan.
Of course they did. AMD has been hiding the truth like Enron. As soon as that truth is revealed, AMD will BK.
Jeach! said...
What are you talking about Pointer?
AMD never made up any numbers! They just changed their corporate guidance downwards after getting their loan.
Wow! I don't know what else i can say about you. While there is not even an incident that prove that Intel made up any number, you said that is possible, etc. And with the real example that I gave you and with the very possible reason behind the AMD gave rosy number before bad news in just a few weeks time, you said that AMD NEVER made up any number. You see what your problem is now?
I said: Any market researcher can estimate Intel's earnings by looking at tangible products.
jeach said: What world are you living in? Market researchers don't do research to estimate numbers. Market analysts don't know the industry to make upgrades/downgrades.
I said market researchers like Gartner or iSupply, not market analyst.
While I do agree that the size is a factor for ease to fudge numbers, the type and segment such as manufacturing vs service or trade plays a big role.
While Intel can obviously play around with numbers, it becomes limited as they would need to tie in the numbers with volume shipped, product mix and ASPs that is out there.
Show me proof of who does the checking, when, where, how and when
well, can you please tell me who investigated the following:
> Steve Jobs of options backdating
> Dell accounting probe
> Sanyo's accounting scandal
> Samsung
> etcetera
it must be elves from Middle earth auditing the companies.
you're really full of s**t.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Yep, that's the one :)
Didn't get my sarcasm did you? I was pointing out how big of a moron you are.
Why AMD numbers are down..
Price war, sucky benchmarks, dropping marketshare...
They have already said sales in channel are slow. Why would they be counting on sales in channel. They diverted it all to Dell, opps dell volume on AMD suck now that C2 is moving like hot cakes below 300 buck segment. Try to go back to channel. Surprise channel is also happy with 300 and below C2 moving like hot cakes.
Opps sales are down, each unit they sell is selling for even lower APS then they expected. Revenue way down, profit non-existent, billions in debt to service, billions in equipment paymenst due on 65nm, hundreds of million in 45nm expenses coming due.
Big trouble.. BK in 2008 The "Ph"ony "D"octorate got it right but its AMD that is going BK
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
"In 2000, Enron claimed revenues of $111 billion dollars. In 2001 they filed for bankruptcy."
Enron's financials were FALSE, Intel's are tried and true. The Statement of Cash Flows doesn't lie, unlike a balance sheet or income statement.
Enron was bleeding cash, Intel generates billions in cash each year.
Comparing Intel and Enron is like saying that IBM will go the way of Wang Labs.
Post a Comment
<< Home