backtop

Hardware AMD Hits Rough Waters
Brandon Hill (Blog) - January 13, 2007 2:00 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 101 comment(s) - last by Slaimus.. on Jan 24 at 3:09 PM
Q4 2006 wasn't so kind to AMD

Over the past year, AMD has seen some pretty big ups in its business. The Sunnyvale, CA-based company signed a deal with long-time holdout Dell Computer to provide processors for notebooks, desktops and servers. In July, AMD announced that it was acquiring graphics chip and motherboard chipset maker ATI Technologies. Many industry analysts opinioned that with processors, chipsets and graphics under its belt, AMD would have a better chance of going up against chip giant Intel Corp.

Bolstered by the strength of the K8 architecture, AMD has been able to rise from 15.9% of the overall PC market in Q3 2004 to 23.3% in Q3 2006. In Q3 2006, AMD's marketshare in the server, desktop and notebook sectors rose to 24.4%, 26.5% and 18.3% respectively.

But for all the good things that happened to AMD over the past year, Q4 was a particularly rough patch for the company. For all of the marketshare that AMD has been able to gain from Intel over the past few years, AMD's quarter earnings quote that "significantly lower" average selling prices chipped away at earnings.

AMD is expecting for its Q4 2006 revenue to come in at $1.37 billion USD (excluding ATI operations), an increase of 3% from Q3 2006. Analysts were expecting earnings of 22 cents per share on $1.85 billion USD in sales from the company. After including the acquisition costs of ATI, the company is expected to post a loss of $0.91 per share.

While the pricing war hasn't been very beneficial to AMD's bottom line, AMD's progress when it comes to new manufacturing process technology has also been a hindrance. AMD has been slow to move to 65nm designs, while Intel has been humming along with 65nm processors for a year. And just as AMD is getting its feet wet with 65nm processors, Intel has already begun sampling 45nm Penryn processors and is expected to bring production 45nm processors to market in the second half of 2007.

Intel's Core-based processors have also taken away much if not all of the performance advantage that AMD processors once held and have been making the rounds in the notebook, desktop and server segments. "I think it came from Intel having very successfully come up with new processors and ramping production up much more quickly than anyone expected," said JoAnne Feeney, managing director with FTN Midwest Securities.

In fact, Intel has already introduced quad-core desktop and server processors – AMD’s only response has been its Quad FX platform which pairs two dual-core processors onto a single motherboard.

The key for AMD is to get new products out to businesses and consumers to battle this drought. “Unfortunately, a lot of things don't change for AMD until they get new products, just like how things didn't change for Intel until they had new products," Cody Acree, an analyst for Stifel Nicolaus. AMD does have a few tricks up its sleeve including native quad-core processor designs for the server market in mid-2007 and new notebook processors. But for the immediate future, AMD may simply have to rely on Windows Vista for a surge in its chip business.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
AMD....someone is missing the point
By WakoKid on 1/13/2007 11:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
While the argument rages about inconsiderate rants on the part of some commentators, I think we're missing the point. The point being AMD, the underdog that gave Intel a run for it's money, seems to be in trouble. Not good. People (whether they know it or not) need a vigorus, competitive AMD (or someone like them) to drive competition with Intel. If not AMD, who else can/will provide that? IMHO the purchase of ATI was a huge tactical error and I'd be willing to bet that swallowing ATI is proving to be a huge distraction to AMD.




RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By MartinT on 1/14/2007 3:28:19 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
People (whether they know it or not) need a vigorus, competitive AMD (or someone like them) to drive competition with Intel.

That's the problem, now, isn't it? When AMD was on top of the game starting in 2003, they decided to can their next two new core designs (K9 and K10) and pretty much stopped core development for the time being.

That's neither vigorous not competitive, that's just lazy and AMD now gets what it deserves.


RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By mark2ft on 1/14/2007 6:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
If you compare AMD and Intel's stock market cap, you'll realize how far AMD is behind Intel. Intel is huge--it's always been that way. I don't think AMD just decided to "wing it" since 2003; Intel's R&D spending is huge, and they will probably stay ahead of AMD in terms of staying a generation ahead in their manufacturing processes. Financial strength plays a big part I think, not just superior products.


RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By MartinT on 1/15/2007 3:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you compare AMD and Intel's stock market cap
What has market cap to do with what AMD decided to do with their money? (i.e. first accumulating $2.something billion and then spending it all (+a $2.5 billion loan) on the money sypphon ATi)

That money could've gone into R&D, but AMD was contempt with their current products and banking on Intel to continue to fall over its own feet, over and over again.


RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By Viditor on 1/15/2007 4:55:00 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
That money could've gone into R&D


It DID go into R&D...
One of the most cost effective ways to spend R&D money is to acquire a company with technology you need...
As an example, the cost to develop the first Athlon chipset was significantly higher for AMD than the cost to develop the Athlon itself. By acquiring ATI, AMD saves a significant amount of money in both chipsets and total platform development. In addition, they are able to develop entirely new types of technology (Fusion, Torrenza, etc...).


RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By decapitator666 on 1/15/2007 5:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
Good point you made.. Some people do not understand the simplest of things or concept..


By mlambert890 on 1/15/2007 7:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
Good comment. Also, as an aside, its really funny to hear the peanut gallery on a tech forum make arrogant proclamations about who "doesnt know what theyre doing" and what "should be done". I wonder... Is this a CEO summit posting here? Its just a funny image to picture some working class guy sitting there raging and shaking his fists because "he knows" what AMD "needed to do" and "knows" exactly what they "did wrong".

Meanwhile, we have yet to see what AMD is thinking with their ATI acquisition, how they plan to position themselves against Intel moving forward, what they really plan to do. I have some theories, but I will wait to see how things play out. It is quite possible that AMD will choose to enter and dominate specific niche markets and keep up their assault in the commodity server space. AMD doesnt really need to dominate the Core 2 in Anandtech benchmarks to be successful.

They can merge their CPU and GPU cores in a kind of configurable at manufacturing time process (select X CPU cores and Y GPU cores on die) and sell boatloads of them to set-top box manufacturers and turn-key solution builders as single chip AV machines. There are any number of things that AMD can do with their current IP, cash position, revenue stream and market position. People who predict "DOOM IMMINENT!!!" just make themselves look ignorant in business discussions with companies of this size.


By JumpingJack on 1/14/2007 4:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the argument rages about inconsiderate rants on the part of some commentators, I think we're missing the point. The point being AMD, the underdog that gave Intel a run for it's money, seems to be in trouble. Not good. People (whether they know it or not) need a vigorus, competitive AMD (or someone like them) to drive competition with Intel. If not AMD, who else can/will provide that? IMHO the purchase of ATI was a huge tactical error and I'd be willing to bet that swallowing ATI is proving to be a huge distraction to AMD.


Best point, and best post so far.


RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By Viditor on 1/14/2007 7:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point being AMD, the underdog that gave Intel a run for it's money, seems to be in trouble


The thing is that we really don't know that AMD is in trouble...
Think back to when Intel dropped their price drastically and cut their Gross Margin even below AMD's. The reason they did this of course was to try and get back some of the marketshare they were bleeding...
While it appears that AMD has also dropped their own prices to the point of missing their revenue expectations (remember that they said unit sales were excellent, but the Average Selling Price was very low), it's quite possible that they have gained some substantial marketshare as a result.

I know that many don't understand how AMD can gain marketshare against the technological advantage of C2D, but to understand you only have to remember that 60-80% of the chips that Intel is shipping are still Netburst chips...

We will know in another 4-5 weeks how this plays out as the marketshare numbers are reported.
My own opinion is that AMD has lost ground to Woodcrest in the low-end server sector, but gained ground in the desktop and mobile sectors...


RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By Zandros on 1/15/2007 4:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

I know that many don't understand how AMD can gain marketshare against the technological advantage of C2D, but to understand you only have to remember that 60-80% of the chips that Intel is shipping are still Netburst chips...


I wouldn't be so sure of that. I expect none of Intel's notebook sales to be Netburst based, instead mostly using the Celeron derivative of Yonah (Celeron M 4*0) and Core Duo chips. At the same time, Dell seem to have transitioned its low end to AMD, leaving almost only Core 2 Chips for the rest, and as we know Apple don't use Netburst at all, and no enthusiast will be buying Netburst.

Unless they're dumping Netburst into low-development markets, corporate is the only place I can think of which would be able to eat a huge chunk of Pentium D's and Netburst Xeons.

I'd make an educated guess on about 55% of Intel's chips being Netburst based today, though even that looks huge.


RE: AMD....someone is missing the point
By Viditor on 1/15/2007 7:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd make an educated guess on about 55% of Intel's chips being Netburst based today


At the moment, the only numbers we have are Intel's for percentages...
They predicted that Core2 would be 40% of their shipments by the end of Q1.
As to Intel's mobile, I would say that the majority is still Netburst (Celeron). Remember that AMD is still gaining ground in mobile, and it certainly isn't because Turion X2 is better than Merom! What's selling the most is the very low end, and that means Celeron, Sempron, and single core Turions...


By Zandros on 1/16/2007 7:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, 40% Core 2 Duo at the end of Q1 perhaps, but there still are a lot of Core Solo/Duo and Celeron M laptops sold, that must account for the majority of their mobile processors, and the Celeron M is not Netburst based.


By clnee55 on 1/19/2007 3:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
If 40% C2D already causes trouble to AMD, what would happen to AMD when 100% is C2D. The prospect of AMD being red next year is very possible.


If they hadn't have locked out S939...
By Fanon on 1/15/2007 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if they hadn't have locked out S939, I would still purchase AMD processors. AMD gave me no choice; any upgrade I make requires a new mobo, cpu, and RAM. Intel has the superior product for less money, so they're getting my dollars.




RE: If they hadn't have locked out S939...
By encryptkeeper on 1/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: If they hadn't have locked out S939...
By Fanon on 1/15/2007 2:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
The move to DDR2 did absolute squat. Any gains are minimal at best; there wasn't a need to move to DDR2 yet. Down the road, yes, but now? No.

BTX, Viiv? Those are the only things Intel has pushed? You have heard of Core 2 Duo, correct? Nothing AMD has on the shelves can top it, and I highly doubt AMD will retake the performance crown for a while.

So again, I'm facing a purchase of a mobo, cpu, and RAM. What do I pick? AMD, or an entry-level Intel CPU that can blow away an AMD X2 5000+?


RE: If they hadn't have locked out S939...
By encryptkeeper on 1/15/2007 4:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
Do whatever you want. If you were considering staying with 939, then you obviously don't have the ability to plan ahead. Stop bitching about AMD making you buy a new cpu, memory, and motherboard because guess what? You have to do the SAME thing to move to Core 2.


By coldpower27 on 1/15/2007 9:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
Which makes the decision easier for him as he can now go for the better performing processor Core 2 Duo, given he has to do a complete overhaul anyway, might as well go for better performance at lower power.


By Fanon on 1/16/2007 9:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
I plan ahead just fine. I've used S939 for quite some time. While sticking a newer, faster CPU in my board isn't the best of upgrades (considering the current product lineup from both companies), it is a cheap solution, especially since prices dropped with Core 2 Duo's release.

quote:
Stop bitching about AMD making you buy a new cpu, memory, and motherboard because guess what? You have to do the SAME thing to move to Core 2.


No shit, Sherlock. That's the whole damn point of my original post. Congrats for finally catching it. My point is that AMD is losing money from consumers that want a fast and easy upgrade. Any upgrade now consists of a new mobo, cpu, and RAM. AMD lost money from me, and I know I'm not alone, the moment they ceased to produce any new cpus for the platform. Why? Because if I'm going to have to upgrade the core components of my system, its going to be Intel.


By Slaimus on 1/24/2007 3:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
The move to DDR2 significantly lowered prices for system builders, so it made a difference. Intel's DDR2 move with the 915/925XE does fit your logic.


RE: If they hadn't have locked out S939...
By Le Québécois on 1/15/2007 5:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Did it ever occur to you that if you had bought an Intel CPU at the same time you did buy that S939 AMD, you would still need to change all the thing you mentionned above in order to have your new CPU?

AMD had to move from DDR1 to DDR2 to follow the market and unlike Intel they don't have the production capacity to make both S939 and AM2 at the same times without losing some market share in the process.

AMD CPU were already hard to find in the Q4-2006 with only the AM2 so imagine what it may have look like if they had to split their production.


By Fanon on 1/16/2007 9:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
That's not entirely true. Many existing boards could run Core 2 Duo at its launch.

AMD, at the time, was its own market. As long as they sold chips, the demand for other products (DDR1 for example) would still be in demand.

Of course they were already hard to find in Q4, they had already phased out S939. Had they split production, things may be better for them, as consumers like me would still purchase a CPU to get an easy upgrade.


Please get your figures straight
By ybee on 1/13/2007 6:02:38 PM , Rating: 3
1) According to AMD's press release http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo...
$1.33B are 3Q sales and 4Q sales will be up 3 percent.

2)$1.85B estimate apparently refers to consolidated sales (AMD+ATI) while $1.33 you mention refer to the unconsolidated AMD sales. Actual consolidated sales are likely to be somewhere in the $1.65-1.7B range.

3) Revenues are never measured in cents per share. This unit is used for earnings (net profit) per share (net profit = revenues - expenses). According to Reuters, analysts estimate net profits for 4Q at $51M or 8 cents per share (thats before acquisition-related costs).

So the results are well below expectations, but not really catastrophic.




RE: Please get your figures straight
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/13/2007 6:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I have corrected some of these figures.

I had not seen models for consolidated sales, but the AMD unconsolidated expectation was $1.44 billion, a 9.23% difference in a holiday season.

Intel will post its numbers later in the month. If the loss is really directly related to a price war, we'll see them below expectations too.


RE: Please get your figures straight
By ybee on 1/13/2007 6:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
So if 4Q sales are 1.33*1.03=1.37 thats only 5 percent below expectations. Not bad at all, considering the price war.

When AMD and Intel report their 4Q results, we'll probably have more information, including some ASP hints, segment figures and so on.

I used to do company valuations for a living and I always enjoy breaking down AMD and Intel's quarterly results.


RE: Please get your figures straight
By Viditor on 1/13/2007 10:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if 4Q sales are 1.33*1.03=1.37 thats only 5 percent below expectations. Not bad at all, considering the price war


Exactly...what will be interesting is whether or not this has bought AMD more marketshare. Remember that the warning said that while ASPs were drastically lower because of the price war, unit sales were unprecedentedly higher.


RE: Please get your figures straight
By JumpingJack on 1/14/2007 12:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
It is quite horrendous --- consensus estimates were 0.27/share before the announcement, now it will come in at 0.08/share, this is significant.


RE: Please get your figures straight
By ybee on 1/14/2007 6:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
EPS is not really very informative, especially quarterly EPS - can be significantly affected by many factors (like number of workdays in the quarter) or manipulated by accountants. You should look at revenues, gross margins, EBITDA, cashflows, ASPs, segment trends and so on to understand whats going on.

So lets just wait for the SEC filing.


By crystal clear on 1/14/2007 12:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
"Unfortunately, a lot of things don't change for AMD until they get new products, just like how things didn't change for Intel until they had new products."

In light of AMD's warning, Wall Street now expects it to show a profit, before special items, of $51 million, or 8 cents per share. Including the company's acquisition of graphics chip maker ATI, which closed in the quarter, AMD is expected to show a loss of nearly $500 million, or 91 cents per share.

AMD reports quarterly earnings on January 23.

ALSO

"While Intel appears to be regaining market share from AMD and in our view has relatively lower risk, it is not immune to these industry factors," said Daniel Berenbaum, an analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group.

When Intel reports fourth-quarter earnings on Tuesday, Wall Street will be looking for it to show a profit before special items of $1.43 billion, or 25 cents per share.

That is a drop of 40 percent compared with a year earlier. Since then, Intel has sold off several unprofitable business units, pledged to cut 10,000 jobs and refocused on its core PC processor operations.

Revenue is expected to be $9.43 billion, down 7.5 percent from a year earlier.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?typ...


Nothing new & NEWS
By crystal clear on 1/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing new & NEWS
By SexyK on 1/14/2007 2:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
if "everyone expected this" then why did AMD drop 10% of its value in one day directly after the announcement? If everyone know, the open market reaction would not have been anywhere near so negative. Would have already been built into the price.


RE: Nothing new & NEWS
By JumpingJack on 1/14/2007 4:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Another good point --- everyone expected AMD to post a loss this quarter because of acquisition charges, that was not unexpected --- however, the revenue from CPU (excluding the acquisition) is what shocked everyone. The street was expecting much higher.


RE: Nothing new & NEWS
By ybee on 1/14/2007 4:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
If a company is going to have a bad quarter anyway, the management often tries to make it as bad as possible by delaying some revenues and bringing forward some expenses...




RE: Nothing new & NEWS
By Viditor on 1/14/2007 7:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the revenue from CPU (excluding the acquisition) is what shocked everyone


I slightly disagree...
What caused the movement was the drop in Gross Margins immediately after AMD's Analyst Day predicted the opposite.


RE: Nothing new & NEWS
By crystal clear on 1/15/2007 8:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
Read this-

Quote-
Investors, who pushed AMD shares (AMD : Advanced Micro Devices,
18.26, -1.92, -9.5%) down more than 9% Friday after the company issued a profit warning, have grown skeptical that it can.
The stock is now down more than 55% since March, when Intel first signaled it was being hurt by AMD in the market for server chips. Ironic as it sounds, investors sold off AMD shares on that news because many guessed that Intel would cut prices to win back share in a lucrative market.
Those fears of a price war turned out to be well-founded, and AMD blamed its reduced forecast on lower sales prices for microprocessors used in PCs and data-server networks.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-may-wilt...

Unquote-

*I cannot speak for the market,but in unofficial conversations-"everyone expected this"

*The momemt Intel launched its Core Duo range,backed up with
Quad core plus massive price cuts to unload its inventry of
older versions of its CPUs,& even further flooding the market with Core Duo 2.
This was enough of a indication to sell Amd shares before a major drop.
*The smart guys sold off just before,leaving the rest to take on the 10% drop.

Anyway cannot reveal more than this.
.


By encryptkeeper on 1/15/2007 10:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
OK, so Sony, Intel, AMD, whatever flaming aside, does anyone know WHY it is that AMD seems to be incontinent about getting out new products? If it wasn't for them showing up Intel and vice versa we'd still be stuck in the Pentium 2 days. How is it that a company can come out with an obviously copied technology like AMD Live!, not advertise it, and sell MORE of it than the company that originated it? All that, AND they can't seem to make anything innovative after driving the industry since the Athlon came out what, 5 years ago?




By Viditor on 1/15/2007 10:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'll type this quick so as not to interupt your stand-up...:)

People just have no sense of perspective for this industry!

For example, it took Intel (who has 10 times the resources) about 3 years to catch up to AMD...
AMD's next generation chips come out next quarter (not quite a year after the first C2D derivative), and you think they are just waiting around?

1. It takes 5 years to develop a chip
2. Intel spent a FORTUNE in resources, projects being cancelled, inventory write-downs (Netburst), and especially cash to get C2D out before K10 is released. They deserve the year...not to mention the fact that their engineers are just as brilliant as AMD's.
3. Next Gen architecture aside, I take it you don't think Torrenza or Fusion is innovative enough? Not to mention x86-64...btw, Athlon came out in August of 1999 (7.5 years ago).
4. What (in your mind) was AMD Live! copied from? If you mean ViiV, then you don't understand development...it takes years for that tech to be developed, and they were announced and released within a month of each other.


By encryptkeeper on 1/15/2007 12:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
Take a look at Viiv and Live. They provide pretty much the same services. I'm not very impressed with AMD not having anything to counter Core 2 right now. The "next generation" chips you're talking about are only the 65nm core chips, nothing more.


By Viditor on 1/15/2007 5:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "next generation" chips you're talking about are only the 65nm core chips, nothing more


No, they are the K10 chips...they should be demoed this quarter sometime and shipped in Q2 (near the end).
Improvements include:
32B Fetch
Enhanced Branch prediction
Out-of-order loads
Up to 4 DP FLOPS/cycle
Dual 128-bit SSE dataflow
Dual 128-bit loads/cycle
Additional HT links (HT-3)
Quad Crossbar
Enhanced power management


Lets talk about the subject...
By nerdye on 1/13/2007 5:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
I may agree or disagree about fox news and yada yada, lets talk about AMD... Its true that AMD has not done so hot in the 4th quarter of 2006 as core 2 duo has trickled into every faucet of computing (server, dekstop, laptop and even mac), and even though intel has been shipping more net burst cpu's this year (well 2006 that is) than core based cpu's, the fact that core 2 duo is performance king has been very hurtful to AMD's sales in even the non uber hardcore market. Dell is probably getting quite a deal on AMD cpu's right now. And yes 90nm cpu's don't make as much profit as 65nm cpu's, that hurts AMD too. The native quad core is AMD's golden ticket to atleast win back the server segment of the cpu market, they gotta own atleast one segments performance crown to get proper respect I believe. We also have to admit that buying ATI wasn't cheap, and of course affects stock an profits, yet does help AMD's overall strategy in the future. AMD will be ok, yet they must introduce a performer to regain their sweet heart status in the industry again. Do you guys think their chip shortages due to the fact that all their chips have been going to dell and hp lately will prohibit them from retaining the sweet heart status in the community even if they come back with a performer? I'll always love AMD, or maybe I'm just biased, (insert pun here).




RE: Lets talk about the subject...
By Regs on 1/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Lets talk about the subject...
By typo101 on 1/14/2007 8:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
Although I realize that AMD has not released a new architecture in a long time, I have a hard time believing that ANY multi-billion dollar company can or will "sit on their hands".

I wonder what they were up to, other than dreaming about a future with GPU and CPU on one die?

Anybody know? Anybody have speculations? (please specify which before you make any statements ;) )


RE: Lets talk about the subject...
By ChipDude on 1/15/2007 8:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Thought experiment, you are the CEO of a company with a great product beating the competiion in everything. Do you stop turning out new models? NO. Do you throw the product out and try something radical? Maybe.. depending on what you think the competition is doing.

Take INTEL in Willamette to Northwood days. MegHz was killing AMD as they ramped that from 1.8 GHz to 3.2. It is surprising that all those smart engineers missed the minor detail about how power scaled with frequency and let the marketing monkeys win the whispering in Craig and Paul's ears. Its worrisome heah, that Paul and Craig couldn't figure it out.

Now look at AMD Opteron and 64bit. Once it came out they quickly figured out they had a homerun. THey struggled convincing people that MegHz didn't matter then INTEL ran off the cliff with MegHz. Then they were king with 64 bit and efficiency. Taking market share left and right, eating INTEL's server lunch. THey probably took their merry time with Barcelona, 65nm, 300mm ramp, why hurry we were kicking INTEL's butt. INTELs CedarMill and 65nm wasn't competitive what was there to worry about? Opps COre 2 blows them away... now they look so silly with 65nm ramp a year latter, Barcelona a year late..

No body is sitting you just don't appreciate the the respective point of views. Isn't it Andy who said only the Parnoid survive. Clearly Craig, Paul, Hector didn't take his recommendation to heart and thought a little to much of themselves.

I've said this before a focused INTEL isn't beatible. Only way AMD grows is if INTEL screws up or gives up on certain markets.


By Beenthere on 1/13/2007 8:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
AMD did NOT miss projections by $520M.

The doomsdayers might want to try doing the math correctly...

http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/newsanalysis/maven/...




By encryptkeeper on 1/15/2007 10:33:45 AM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, AMD isn't coming close to making anything innovative right now, but what hurt them in Q4 was availability. NOTHING and I mean nothing was available from them all of October and November. You know why? Because Dell bought EVERYTHING they had.


Gee, would you look at that?
By Goty on 1/16/2007 7:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2799...

Seems that Intel's profits dropped by almost 40%. No story about that, though, I guess.




RE: Gee, would you look at that?
By Viditor on 1/16/2007 8:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
To be accurate, profits aren't the important metric at this point (for both Intel and AMD).

What's causing Intel to drop in after hours trading is the fact that their Gross Margin is at 49.6% (compared to 61.8% from a year ago).
When Conroe first came out, Intel promised to have the Gross Margin back into the mid-50% range by years end...obviously this hasn't happened.

It makes sense that by cutting the prices so low, Intel's profits (and GM) would drop, but that's a big drop!
The upside Intel was looking for was a gain in marketshare, but it doesn't appear that has happened...at least they wouldn't say that it had when they were asked (and of course they would have if it had happened...).

On the upside for Intel is that expectations were already fairly low, so they beat estimates on EPS and revenue.


AMD Stock market at 1 year low
By hstewarth on 1/24/2007 10:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
I just notice on CBB that AMD stock has hit the 1 year low and is actually close to 2 year low.

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?pg=qu&sid=37...

One problme if this continues, Intel could raise the price of chips and this would hurt the customers.




By hstewarth on 1/24/2007 10:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry about the typo - that is CNN not CBB :)

By the way - at time of this message, the stock was 16.08, previous 1 year low value was 16.90


Comments Summary
By mindless1 on 1/17/2007 12:16:03 PM , Rating: 3
In summary, you are all rabid monkeys that have seen too too many colored graphs and aspire to be on the winning hardware team du jour while you waste 99% of the processing power available to you while arguing over text on the internet and which parameter of earnings is the one we should care about - as if our thoughts on this are directing AMD's actions.

Spelling Nazis, bleh. I fail to correct mistyped words because I don't care if they care, and I don't go around trying to correct every slight mispronounced word someone speaks either - it's rude.





Less bias please.
By bokep on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By Wonga on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By bokep on 1/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 1/13/2007 4:51:30 PM , Rating: 5
Or how about you stop being so stuck-up and leave this site if everything about it is so bad. Let's try to count the complaints:

quote:
-"being biased in your articles"
-"use the spellcheck more often"
-"always something misspelled in an article"
-"something about how Sony sucks"
-"you jumped wagons"
-"you seem to glorify everything that Intel does"
-"downplay AMD"
-"You're becoming the FOX News of Tech-related news online"


Not that I see what's wrong with FOX, I always like hearing someone else's (in this case, right wing media) view. Now let's go through your amount of compliments for Dailytech....

...

...

...

Can't find any. So if this site is so bad why don't you just head over to another place like the Inquirer where I am sure you will be very happy.

-------
Chillin


RE: Less bias please.
By bokep on 1/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By Snoop on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 1/13/2007 6:30:45 PM , Rating: 5
If you want to help make the site better then send a list of problems and suggestions to: kristopher@dailytech.com.

But complaining in each article is just going to start flame wars and not help anyone.

-------
Chillin


RE: Less bias please.
By Exodus220 on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/14/2007 3:15:47 AM , Rating: 5
I enjoy any and all feedback.


RE: Less bias please.
By noxipoo on 1/15/2007 10:04:14 AM , Rating: 3
Kris,

More asian models on those product announcements please!


RE: Less bias please.
By encryptkeeper on 1/15/2007 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
FEMALE Asian models. Let's make sure there aren't any mixups here. But seriously, for all you jerks out there that keep complaining about how you think DailyTech is biased, just stop coming here, or at least stop complaining. This is a BLOG. It's not an unbiased news source. It never will be. Coming here and pissing and moaning about how the news is unbalanced is like complaining that the Daily Show isn't a balanced source of news. DailyTech NEVER promised to be a source of news in that respect, it just is the opinions and news of a few people that happen to like reading and studying about familiar technology. Take a lesson from me, if I'm surfing online and I see a site that seems to be biased towards something I don't like guess what I do? I fucking go somewhere else, that's what.


RE: Less bias please.
By blueoasis66 on 1/19/2007 9:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
FoxNews is a COUNTERBALANCE to 20 years of a LIBERAL BIAS in the media. FoxNews came about because there was a very real Fairness & Equal Coverage Power Vacuum created by a one-sided media. And now, Both sides are represented, not just the liberal side.

Now that you've been told, you can go ignore everything I just told you and go back to reading your leftist New York Times or Village Voice or whatever it is you read for your liberal-slanted news.


RE: Less bias please.
By Chernobyl68 on 1/23/2007 7:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'd prefer it if the news people stuck to just reporting, instead of Jedi reporting "from a certain point of view"
I hate slanted reporting, no matter which side it comes from. I'd prefer that they just tell me what happened and let me make up my own mind - stop trying to paint it with a brush of one color or another.


RE: Less bias please.
By d33pblue on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By Tegeril on 1/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By nothingtoseehere on 1/13/2007 9:02:45 PM , Rating: 5
The press is mispresenting the facts, the $1.37B AMD mentioned is without ATI operations and the analysts $1.85B expectations _INCLUDE_ the ATI operations. Needless to say ATI is not losing money...

Although revenue is lower than expected by the analysts (duh the core2 is pretty neat and AMD is not on 65nm yet, plus the analysts are idiots), it's not by $1.85B-$1.37B because those are apples and oranges.



RE: Less bias please.
By Slaimus on 1/24/2007 2:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually ATI did lose money. AMD without ATI made money, ATI without AMD lost money, and the whole acquisition (paying a premium for ATI stock) lost a whole lot of money.

See: http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11695


RE: Less bias please.
By Viditor on 1/13/2007 10:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
They were $520m out on their estimate


What? They were off by ~15-20 million...
The estimate was 1.85B INCLUDING ATI ...
They made 1.33B EXCLUDING ATI

ATI is expected to bring in ~500 million...

That means that they probably made ~1.83B including ATI (but we will have to wait for the report on the 22nd).


RE: Less bias please.
By MartinT on 1/14/2007 3:15:22 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
ATI is expected to bring in ~500 million ...

Actually, AMD only expects ATI to add $350~$400 million to their Q4 revenues.
http://epscontest.com/presentations/06q4_analyst-d...

That puts the combined entity at 1.72~1.77 billion, or ~$60-$110 million short of the street's revenue estimates.


RE: Less bias please.
By carl0ski on 1/15/2007 5:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
either way that is still a far way from the 568Million figure someone pulled out their arse


RE: Less bias please.
By secretanchitman on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By bokep on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By cochy on 1/13/2007 5:16:00 PM , Rating: 3
Man relax. Find me a news site that is s squeaky clean with zero bias and I'll loan you my copy of Duke Nukem Forever. Ain't gonna happen. Everyone has their opinion and everyone loves to share that opinion. What you're supposed to do as a responsible reader is separate what you believe is bias and take what you will from the rest. Don't annoy the others with all that grammar, spellcheck bs, it's been done and everyone's heard it already. Don't forget to have some cheese with your whine.


RE: Less bias please.
By bokep on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By oscar6 on 1/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By Exodus220 on 1/13/2007 11:09:36 PM , Rating: 3
Dude, you have to let me borrow that copy of Duke Nukem Forever when you are done, I have been dying to play that for over a decade...


RE: Less bias please.
By secretanchitman on 1/13/2007 6:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
whoa whoa whoa not you...the OP!


RE: Less bias please.
By crystal clear on 1/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By PlasmaBomb on 1/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/16/2007 10:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
10.6 million is their total number shifted for the year 2006. 1.4 Million of which were sold during the holiday period.


RE: Less bias please.
By rattrick1 on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By Chaser on 1/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By Viditor on 1/13/2007 10:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fox News has scientifically been proven to show the least bias in the media


That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Having worked for them, I can assure you that even FOX would have a good chuckle over that.


RE: Less bias please.
By smitty3268 on 1/14/2007 12:11:19 AM , Rating: 3
LOL. Fox execs have basically admitted that they slant certain stories in certain directions because that's what their audience wants to see.


RE: Less bias please.
By blueoasis66 on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By aurareturn on 1/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By mlambert890 on 1/15/2007 7:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
A comment like this is always amazing to me. So you actually feel that CNN and MSNBC are shills for the Bush administration? Its amazing because right wingers all feel that CNN and MSNBC are communist networks who are out to destroy the president.

I would LOVE to get all of "you guys" in a room so you can duke it out. Then just lock the door and kind of run as far away as possible.

The fact that you attend that particular conference and then come back regurgitating their tired talking points speaks volumes.

The downside of the open discourse of the internet is that it exposes you directly to just how insane both the extreme left and extreme right really are. Sort of a rude awakening and very frightening.


RE: Less bias please.
By blueoasis66 on 1/19/2007 9:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's amazing that people who hate FoxNews are so willing to disbelieve a liberal bias that has existed for 20 years or so in the media. I do believe that FoxNews is conservatively biased, but it's this way because the Leftist thinking is so entrenched in the traditional media giants. The end result is a Fair and Balance that is created by the singular Juggernaut FoxNews & the Legion of Liberal outlets standing on either side of the pendulum.

It'd be nice if a true happy medium existed, but like it not, media outlets are either entrenched in the LIBERAL mindframe or a token few in the Conservative mindframe. Not pretty, but it's what we have.


RE: Less bias please.
By decapitator666 on 1/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By ChipDude on 1/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Less bias please.
By Viditor on 1/14/2007 7:49:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
AMD is going to be seing red in 2007


If you mean they will have a quarter in the red, I think that for Q2 you might be correct...
If you mean you think AMD will post a loss for the year, then you need to put down the crack pipe for awhile!

quote:
Where is there volume 65nm

That's what's supplying all of their OEM agreements...65nm is (at the moment) for OEMs only.

quote:
INTEL is on track this year for hundreds of millions from 3 factory


I believe the total global chip supply this year is expected to be ~300 million...so "hundreds of millions", while accurate, may be overstating it a bit.
As to the 3 FABs, Intel's largest of the 3 (D1D) was the first to produce 65nm, but they have all but stopped production there so that the can retool for 45nm. The other 2 should be fully ramped by mid 07...
AMD will also have 2 large FABs fully ramped at 65nm within a few months of that.

quote:
45nm Penrym is already out and booting

That's WAY overstating it! While it's been able to boot at first tape out,
1. This is not production silicon
2. It's unknown if this will be what ships as Intel is supposed to be using high-k metal gates in final silicon

quote:
AMD is all talk

Riiiiiight...easy to see from the last few years.
I recall Intel fans saying the exact same things about
1. x86-64
2. HT
3. On-Die Mem Controllers
4. AMD's ability to enter the server market
5. The original Athlon



RE: Less bias please.
By ChipDude on 1/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Less bias please.
By Viditor on 1/14/2007 9:30:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
300million?