backtop


Print 26 comment(s) - last by matthewfoley.. on Feb 7 at 9:27 AM

Analysts and investors begin favoring AMD over Intel thanks to excellent growth and products

Forbes is reporting that according to both technology advances and market share gains, AMD is expected to shoot past Intel in company performance and growth from now into 2007. AMD over the last couple of quarters has performed superbly, with good pricing and even better product offerings. Market share has risen significantly and even AMD's stock has jumped from about 36 points to 41 points within a week. Intel's price per share remains around 21 points.

Analysts are also predicting that Intel will not have the ability to catch up to AMD until Intel releases products on new 45nm fabrication processes, which isn't expected until 2008 claims Forbes. We reported earlier that AMD is transitioning its Fab 36 in Dresden to mass produce its next generation processors (both dual-core and quad-core) on a 65nm process. Intel on the other hand, has demonstrated that it has successfully started working on 45nm technology but its main production will be 65nm through to 2008.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

INTEL IS BETTER & CHEAPER!!!
By thomasxstewart on 2/2/2006 5:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
AMD takes basic INTEL design & strips its guts out, so it will run "faster". Well, you pay (& believe you posses) for "speed" thats not there & worse, processor thats missing much of its' finery is not as stable.Amd states Processors work as if xxxx+ mhz, well it dosn't run that fast nor work that well at all. Less external input makes it ok in server market, where "blaze" is simply repetitive tasking 24/7, not as well on desktop/workstation with impossible tasking(s) of all sorts just coming up at any 'ole time.INTEL can really design circuits.Even if they are kind of crumily done at first.
Less heat Plus more transistors mean faster & better. In few more steps to 32 nm then 22 to 17 nm & developements should be quality of design issue, not just size. I await day poor desktop user dosn't have to spend years figuring all needed changes out & can just use computer, leaving better & faster to sever & workstation crowd.
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.




RE: INTEL IS BETTER & CHEAPER!!!
By creathir on 2/4/2006 8:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's nice Dr. Von Brashek...
But ya sound like a fanboy to me...
So Dr. Fanboy... Was it AMD or Intel who stepped forward to brought the world 64-bit computing? Was it AMD or Intel who brought us the integrated memory controller? The dual core CPU? My current CPU (a dated Athlon 64 3200+ William. core) has performed quite well for me, as did the CPU I had before this one (an Intel 2.4 Ghz 533MHZ FSB P4) Both of them have been great products, will neither of them "wishing I had gone for the other guy". I have gone back and forth between Intel and AMD CPUs... and have been happy either direction. Both companies offer dazzling products... both of which get the job done when it comes to my requirements. Sometimes Intel has the "best of the best"... sometimes, it’s AMD. The Pentium 2 led the pack for CPUs in its day, (though I never could afford one... HORRAY for over clocked Celerons! Good 'ol Slot loaded Celeron 300Mhz... what a great CPU) until dethroned by the original Athlon. The Athlon XP (IMHO) did not stand a chance against the second gen P4s... My Athlon 64 kicks most P4s rear ends... except for that P4 EE... Which now has been surpassed by the X2... And back and forth we go...
The point is, one guy will lead the race for a few moments... but then will be surpassed by the competition. This is what drive innovation and brings prices down. Competition... is it not the most marvelous thing on earth?

- Creathir

Ps - Prescribe yourself some Midol Doc... ya need to relax just a bit...


RE: INTEL IS BETTER & CHEAPER!!!
By Viditor on 2/4/2006 11:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD takes basic INTEL design & strips its guts out, so it will run "faster"

I think that line alone gives a clue that Herr Dr. really doesn't understand computers...


By matthewfoley on 2/7/2006 9:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, where did that even come from! Ha


As Big of an AMD Fanboy I've been
By FrozenCanadian on 1/31/2006 2:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
for the last 5 years. I doubt AMD has the $$$$ to challenge Intel. All Intel has to do to make thier performance per watt is go mobile chips for everything (its working for apple). Ya I know lower power transitors would cost Intel more but they got enought money to feed the world for a few years, so they could pull it off. Personally I feel AMD's only hope is to win their lawsuit agianst Intel, if they dont its a sad day for us all.

Sorry and /end rant.




RE: As Big of an AMD Fanboy I've been
By Plasmoid on 1/31/2006 4:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
Intel's chance to smoothly switch to using mobile processors came and went with the Pentium M

These new Core Duo's are good, but they just dont do the same task that Pentium 4's are doing now. The only advantage the P4 chips have had is their advantage in ghz. Switching to core Duo basically strips Intel of this and invalidates 4 years of marketing.

Also whle the Core Duo is a good processor, it's aim was always on power saving then performance. The chip would simply be a step backwards as far as consumers and the intdustry would be concerned. Maybe with the sucessor to Merom we will see something that can be widely rolled out desktops.

Apple have a real advantage because they already use essentually laptop components in their desktops. Bar the G5 cube all the Apple computers are small form factor. They get a exactly what they want in the new Core Duo, an increase in performance and a reduction in power usage. Intel dont really need the reduction in power usage as much as they need to catch AMD in performance.


By FrozenCanadian on 1/31/2006 7:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
I understand your Points but you cant say that Intel doesnt have the money to go mobile for all its chips and make AMD look like schmucks.


Analyst are the wrong peeps listen 2
By hmurchison on 1/31/06, Rating: 0
RE: Analyst are the wrong peeps listen 2
By Viditor on 1/31/2006 4:55:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMD has great IPC and the ondie memory controller helps with "latency" but doesn't have obvious throughput advantages. Thus with intel moving to 1066 FSB, FB-DIMM and 4-issue cores I think it's folly to assume that AMD will offer a significant speed advantage. Couple that will the clear fabbing capability of Intel and you have a recipe for Intel success

Some good points...however, AMD is also changing their throughput this year, as well as going FBDIMM (socket F) and they still have a MAJOR advantage with coherent HT links.
Also, keep in mind that not even the 3-issue core is utilized fully...and even Itanium's 6-issue core is only utilized at 50-65% for most all software.


By stephenbrooks on 2/2/2006 12:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
Recently I've seen this as a competition taking place on the two axes of core efficiency and clock speed. Intel came up first in clock speed but then seems to have taken quite a while to come up with their new more efficient cores. Meanwhile they're being squeezed into a smaller corner all the time because AMD has an efficient core *and* clock speeds now up to 2.8GHz. If they'd been quicker with the new core, it would have been easier. Now, it doesn't look like an easy win at all...


By gamara on 2/5/2006 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just showing you don't get what this article is about. This is not processor speed. This is MARKET VALUATION. AMD is 'Speeding Past' Intel in price per share.

You are correct to not listen to analysts about the future performance of processors, but you might listen to them about the future performance of the company making the processor.

Ignorance can be cured with education. The only cure for stupidity is death.



.
By hans007 on 1/31/2006 5:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
this is just a classic wall street pump and dump. sure amd is doing great now.

but when june comes around and core duo is all over the place, and the conroe is out on the desktop with more performance per watt than AMD and a die half the size at 65nm while AMD spends another year probably getting theirs working completely right, analysts will be saying that intel is undervalued this and that, and that AMD's PE ratio isnt commesurate with their stock price.

this is how this game is played. Intel will flood the market with chips at 65nm and their lower production costs etc. Unless AMD has some brand new super low power architecture up their sleeves all the hyper transport in the world will not make a difference for people with computer that only have 1 cpu anyway.




RE: .
By Viditor on 1/31/2006 9:22:51 PM , Rating: 3

1. AMD was demonstrating their working 65nm CPUs in sept of last year. At this point, not only are they ready for volume production, but AMD is reporting some very good yields already. They are expected to begin volume production next quarter in order to build inventory for the launch later this year.

2. Conroe will be nowhere near half the size, in fact it will be closer to the same size or larger than the A64 at 90nm because of the much larger cache

3. As to performance/watt, if Intel even comes close to AMD on this metric they will have succeeded beyond their wildest dream. It's quite doubtful that this will happen (certainly not on the first Conroe chips) anytime soon.

4. Turion X2 is out in April, so it will be quite the horserace in the mobile sector...


By tjr508 on 2/1/2006 1:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since Intel threw in the performance flag and stated that they would focus on performance per watt, I have heard it repeated by nearly every Intel fan on the forums.

Just read this post and see how many people are repeating "performance per watt"

Some fellow a couple posts up mentioned AMD will be dealt a major blow in Q3-06 or so when intel desktops will have better performance per watt

my beef
1. Was this even an issue before intel started shoving it down our faces?
2. Has anyone found an athlon64 chip that even remotely benefits by adding a super expencive cooling solution vs a modest $35 one? I haven't. (My point is AMD has years to go before they can pervert their platform to the extent of the p4)
3. As far as desktops are concerned, isn't "performance without major thermal problems" a better platform than "performance per watt"?




By Gelde3001 on 2/2/2006 3:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
Intel do have an excemplary marketing team - not as good as Sony's reality fantasists, Intel may well be comparable for this year now and certainly wont be loosing much to amd anytime soon until 64-bits does become a real issue and not more marketing. That time though will see intel and amd with 64bit cpu's and then it will be up to amd to show they can actually make and sell more cpu's on merit rather than government subsidies. From the business standpoint amd have gotten off life support with the A64 series but they arent exactly annoying intel yet. As for the lawsuit - well amd have messed up now by charging as much if not more than intel for equivelent cpu's as this will seriously hurt their fair pricing claim against intel etc.


By Readmorecommentless on 1/31/2006 7:57:01 PM , Rating: 3
You might notice the article says "Company performance" and not "Speed" or "Ghz" or anything related to performance of AMD's products. I've been fortunate enough to never own a PC with an Intel processor. BUT - this article is talking about the financial performance of the AMD company. You don't need to be a genius to know AMD has better products at the moment (esp. desktop and server). I wish people would take more time to actually read the article.





Gogogo AMD!
By AggressorPrime on 1/31/2006 3:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just hope that we will see dual core CPUs at $50 soon.




"Points"???
By koomo on 1/31/2006 8:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD's stock has jumped from about 36 points to 41 points within a week. Intel's price per share remains around 21 points.
"Points"? Also, the comparison means absolutely nothing.

I doubt if AMD will unseat Intel anytime soon, but it's great to see they are long out of the times where their future was in doubt and subject to the whims of speculative investors. They look solid now and look to stay that way for awhile. Great news for all consumers.

With Intel getting on the ball with better design architectures, the next couple of years might really be something special. Go AMD! Go Intel!




Great news, Go AMD!!!
By KCjoker on 1/31/2006 4:38:01 PM , Rating: 1
I've owned 3 AMD CPU's and they were all great. I always recommend AMD to people that ask me what to buy as well.




Intel and 45 nano what a joke !
By Beenthere on 1/31/06, Rating: -1
RE: Intel and 45 nano what a joke !
By Questar on 1/31/2006 12:57:11 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you're such an idiot.

Has Intel EVER said their process shrinks were for power reasons?

No.

Intel produced hundreds of millions of chips at 90nm. They will produce hundreds of millions at 65nm.

Not defective at all.


By killerroach on 1/31/2006 3:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Intel said one of the biggest reasons for the switch to 65nm was for power reasons, and Apple continues to tout the performance-to-watt ratio of the 65nm Core Duo as one of the main selling points for their new iMacs. And yes, they are using less power than their 90nm brethren... however, a Pentium 4 on the 65nm process still uses quite a bit more power than a 90nm Athlon 64 (although it's no longer that the Athlon uses less power at full load than the P4 does at idle... the 65nm chips beat that by a couple of watts).


RE: Intel and 45 nano what a joke !
By Samus on 2/1/2006 4:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, your such an idiot Questar. Why else do you think these companies favor die shrinks? Because its cheaper?

Financially speaking, die shrinks barely pay for themselves in production savings these days, because the cost of the die shrink R&D takes years to break even on, and by then, they're usually on another die shrink migration again.

It's like buying a Hybrid. It takes 6 years for the average american driver to break even on the gas savings because they're so expensive. Chances are within the next 6 years your going to migrate to a new car anyway.

The die shrinks exist exclusively for power savings and higher yeald production (my cores per waffer, which is important to AMD only, because they have limited facilities and need more output.)


RE: Intel and 45 nano what a joke !
By Mithan on 1/31/2006 1:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nice that Wall Street has caught up to what the rest of the PC industry has known for the past (4) years... Simply amazing how out of touch Wall Street really is with what is happening in the industry!


Not really, they are reporting that Intel wont be able to catch up until 2008 however many people "in the know" are reporting that Intel may surpass AMD performance wise with their new cores being released in Q3/Q4 so the point is, the Analysts are still just a clueless even though they finally caught on that AMD is a great company with great products.



By Maximilian on 1/31/2006 1:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
Whereas we knew that 2 years ago.


RE: Intel and 45 nano what a joke !
By Viditor on 1/31/2006 1:54:52 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, most people who are "in the know" expect AMD to continue their domination of performance through at least the first half of 2007, probably 2008. Intel's new core is certainly a step in the right direction, but
1. most people are dubious that the 4-issue core (which is their main advantage) will be able to be utilized to it's full extent.
2. Realise that in the server sector, the FSB will still be a bottleneck
3. Note that while AMD has made only modest gains in the mobile sector (from ~3% to ~15% in the last year), the Turion X2 being released in April will use DDR2 and use the new SiGe process, thus decreasing it's power usage to at least that of Yonah (and it will be 64 bit compared to Yonah's 32 bit).
4. Also note that 64 bit Vista is due for Gold release in October
5. The new SiGe process will allow AMD's desktop parts to exceed 3 GHz this year, even at 90nm
6. AMD's 65nm parts will start to ship in Q3/Q4

Intel may come close to catching up, but they won't take the crown again until well into 2007...if at all.


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Related Articles
Intel Focuses on 45 Nanometer Technology
January 25, 2006, 3:05 PM
AMD Says 65nm AMD Products Coming Soon
January 26, 2006, 3:28 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki