backtop


Print 151 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Apr 30 at 8:12 PM

Intel picks up 6% marketshare during one quarter in the overall PC market

The price war that is waging between Intel and AMD paid off handsomely for Intel in the first quarter, according to the latest numbers from Mercury Research. Intel managed to capture 80.5 percent of the PC processor market for Q1 2007.

The strong performance by Intel in Q1 represents a whopping six percentage point increase from the 74.4 percent share that the company held during Q4 2006. The increases per segment come in at eight percent for the desktop market, four percent for the notebook market and seven percent for the server market.

Last year, AMD was quick to point out its strong growth in all computing segments. For the third quarter, AMD's share of the desktop, notebook and server markets stood at 26.5 percent, 18.3 percent and 24.4 percent respectively. The company's overall marketshare for Q3 2006 came in at 23.3 percent. For Q4 2006, that share rose to 25.3 percent.

Intel erased all of AMD's 2006 gains and pushed the company back under the 20 percent threshold. Analysts for JP Morgan reported that "Intel's superior products and aggressive pricing took their toll on AMD. We expect AMD to lose additional share during (the second quarter)."

AMD has responded to the best of its ability to Intel's strong Core 2-based product family and the company's steady stream of price cuts. By going toe-to-toe with Intel, however, AMD has seen its average selling prices (ASPs) fall along with unit sales.

The company also made a critical error by oversupplying OEMs with processors when they couldn't deliver on sales forecasts while at the same time leaving channel partners out to dry with processor supply. "We made a strategic risk on how we shifted our capacity to serve our customers and unfortunately some of our customers were not able to meet those very aggressive growth areas that they had so when we shifted that, we were not able to recover as fast this quarter as we would have liked," said AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in early March.

The increased pricing pressure, disappointing sales from OEM and the strong performance of dual-core and quad-core processors from Intel has taken its toll on AMD. The company posted a $611 million USD net loss in Q1 2007 and announced that it would restructure its business to cut costs.



Comments     Threshold


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

Scarey
By Kaleid on 4/24/2007 8:33:14 PM , Rating: 5
I'll be going back to AMD to support the underdog, no matter how foolish it may seem.
We absolutely need the competition.




RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/24/2007 8:35:03 PM , Rating: 3
Even if you have to pay more for less performance?


RE: Scarey
By Heinrich on 4/24/2007 8:49:27 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, absolutely. Sometimes buying something shouldn't be all about what's good for ME but should be a statement about what's good for the community.

After Exxon tried to get out of paying for the Valdez disaster I still don't stop at Exxon stations, and I remind my friends regularly.

Buying something can be more than just ego satisfaction, it can be a political statement.


RE: Scarey
By GaryJohnson on 4/24/2007 9:07:17 PM , Rating: 5
I'm confused. So basically you're paying more to get less now to avoid paying more to get less later?


RE: Scarey
By Bonrock on 4/24/2007 9:51:19 PM , Rating: 5
I believe his logic is more along the lines of "pay more to get less now to avoid paying a hell of a lot more to get less later."

Incidentally, last time I checked, AMD is still very competitive with Intel in terms of price-to-performance ratio. That's not a good place for them to be as a business, but as a consumer, buying AMD doesn't necessarily mean you're paying more to get less. It's more like you're paying less to get less, which sounds reasonable to me.


RE: Scarey
By Kaleid on 4/24/2007 10:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
I'll never pay a lot for hardware so it's more like "pay little and get a little less". I do not need extreme performance since I'm less and less interested in games and other applications that require extreme performance.

There's always a possibility that AMD/Ati will go belly up (Sega for instance used to be a large company) and I'd hate to see the only CPUs available for purchase coming from Intel, who, when they never had any real competition from AMD could in their almost monopoly rule of the market decide when to release a new CPU, motherboard and also charge bucketloads of money for their silicon. AMD did well with K7 and K8 and deserved greater marketshares. Had they received that then my guess is that the company would be in better shape now.


RE: Scarey
By arswihart on 4/25/2007 8:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more of a "pay a little now, get a little or a lot, and then pay again on top of that, or maybe not" kind of guy.


RE: Scarey
By GoatMonkey on 4/25/2007 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
Even if AMD were to go out of business, which I don't think is very likely at this point, some other company would take their place.

If Intel were to be a CPU monopoly and overcharged for a stagnant product, someone would step in to give them some competition. As prices went up on CPUs the market would become more attractive to new competition.


RE: Scarey
By Axbattler on 4/25/2007 10:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
Then again, it depends how much they 'overcharge' by: economy of scale works in their favour - the new underdog will be burdened with start-up costs, and unless they come up with a magic product straight off the bat (or one which tackles a niche market Intel neglected - which is large enough for them to sustain until they get both feet on the ground), they would end up being in AMD's current position, but even worse.

That said, I do not think that AMD is going to go belly up either, although it seems that they've not only lost their momentum in the past few years, but are also losing the ground they've gained. I wonder who are the main constituents of the 6% though. I am sure quite a number of enthusiasts have gone Core2 in the past few months, but I've never been quite sure how significant is the enthusiast market.


RE: Scarey
By CollegeTechGuy on 4/25/2007 10:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think if AMD would go out of buisiness they wouldn't just disapear off the face of the earth. Someone would buy them out, and I think the best candidate to do something like that would be IBM. IBM has the money and the engineers to to take over a processor company...and video card. Its funny how many people today forget about IBM, mainly the average Joe that just knows alittle about the computer industry. Because IBM doesn't sell to the average Joe as much as they used to and they are more Buisiness based...plus a portion of their profits come from Patends.


RE: Scarey
By mrteddyears on 4/25/2007 11:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
IBM are going to make a fortune selling Cell CPU for all those PS3 why do they need AMD

"Snigger"


RE: Scarey
By MrBungle123 on 4/25/2007 11:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
Something as complex as A cutting edge CPU is not something that just anyone (or corporation) can just pull out of their ass and start manufacturing tomorrow. If AMD goes belly up the only way that anyone would have a chance at catching up with Intel would be to buy out whats left of AMD and invest Billions into more fabs and engineers.


RE: Scarey
By PrezWeezy on 4/25/2007 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 3
Just because AMD and Intel are the only ones you hear of making chips doesn't mean they are the only ones making chips. There are a lot of microchip manufactures out there and any one of them could start making CPU's if they so chose. Right now it would be very difficult to establish oneself as a CPU manufacture, however if Intel were a monopoly, Samsung, or IBM, or Sony, or Foxconn, or one of a handful of others could start making and distributing chips. They wouldn't have the performance lead to start, just like AMD didn't; but there are a lot of very bright engineers out there that don't wear an Intel badge to work.


RE: Scarey
By emboss on 4/25/2007 8:14:53 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, there's very few companies that can compete in the x86 processor market as the x86 instruction set has half a zillion patents on it. Intel, AMD, and Via can due to cross-licencing agreements, and IIRC there's a couple others out there that are allowed to some degree. If AMD went bust (and AMD's license would almost certainly die with the company), then you'd almost certainly see Intel refuse to license out it's x86 patents and take nearly the whole market for itself (with Via eking out it's existance in it's own little niche as now).

And like it or not, x86 is here to stay for a long time. Intel has thrown billions of dollars (in the form of Itanium) at probably the most easy to convert market segment, and they haven't had a whole lot of success. So it's not like a new competitor can compete with a different architecture either.


RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/30/2007 7:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
No, someone would buy out AMD's assets, which would include their IP related things. Wouldn't be IBM, they're trying to get out of hardware sales completely to become a 'services company'. AMD's estate agents wouldn't just throw away those rights, else I'll buy them for ten bucks.

Would be someone more like Samsung, Toshiba, or Sony. Etc. Somebody who already has big fabs going and funded.

But still, I think Intel would like to keep AMD around. If Intel
is a total monopoly as would be the case if AMD folded, their business practices would really be under government spotlights a lot stronger I think. They'd get class action lawsuits for ripping governments and other people off in one direction, and class action lawsuits from investors for not ripping people off sufficiently.


RE: Scarey
By Ryanman on 4/27/2007 12:32:10 AM , Rating: 1
Theres a difference between say Toys and Processors.
You have to invest HUGE amounts of money to start making Procs, you can't start in your backyard. The only way there would be competition after AMD would be from an already established electionics place like Sony or perhaps Mitsubishi?!?


RE: Scarey
By Calin on 4/26/2007 2:22:39 AM , Rating: 3
Intel launched the 386 processor for about $1,000. At the end of life, one could have bought one for $8.
Intel launched the 486 at about the same price point. At end of life, it was some $25.
Intel launched the Pentium at similar prices ($800+). I don't know how much it was costing at end of life.
And for as long as AMD held the performance crown, the prices all across the board in Intel's camp fell greatly.

One can not compare current processors with old processors, but I have the feeling that processor prices fell a lot since the Athlon (Slot A) days


RE: Scarey
By FITCamaro on 4/24/2007 9:38:42 PM , Rating: 3
I don't shop at Citgo for similar reasons (being that they're effectively owned by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and he has known ties to the terrorist group Hamas).


RE: Scarey
By Kaleid on 4/24/2007 10:14:00 PM , Rating: 3
Well, if you begin to investigate a bit you'll find out that many of the elites in Washington has more ties to Al Qaeda than Iraq ever did before the invastion.

Research PNAC:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

I don't mind if this get's voted down, this isen't really a place for politics...


RE: Scarey
By poohbear on 4/24/2007 10:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
inccidentally hamas has never attacked americans or any other foreigners, its fight is w/ israelis and israelis have killed thousands of innocent palestinians so they really have no moral high ground. its not a black and white arguement.


RE: Scarey
By Ringold on 4/24/2007 11:30:28 PM , Rating: 3
Factually correct, but they've indicated they have terror cells within the US that they'd be willing to use if pushed to do so, and our counter-terror agencies confirm that.

How one post can say "I dont shop at Exxon" because of environmental reasons and not get voted down and another can say "I dont shop at Citgo" because Chavez is a self-avowed socialist/communist who in fact has sponsored Hamas who has in fact warned that they have cells inside our country, a dictator who is nationalizing industries right and left which has already started to slam his economy and hurt the citizens that have entrusted him, and a dictator who we know has given training sessions to people on how to illegaly enter the United States, and that post gets knocked down to -1?

WTF? They can both have valid arguments brought against them for being unethical, but Camaro didn't say anything worth -1 for. For christ sake, people.


RE: Scarey
By Ringold on 4/24/2007 11:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
And before the super-lib of the day reminds me he was freely elected, yes, he was freely elected, yes he has a majority (it helps when the opposition boycott the election), but yes I'll still call any President who gets their congress/parliament/etc to cede him the absolute power to rule by decree a dictator.


RE: Scarey
By mlittl3 on 4/24/2007 11:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sort of like our president "King George" and the rubber stamp republican congress which was finally displaced last November.


RE: Scarey
By MrBungle123 on 4/25/2007 11:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
don't you mean "Vicente Bush"?


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/25/2007 1:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
I know this is not the place for politics, but if this is voted down, then so should its provocation. If Chavez does good things for his people with their best interest at mind, that would do better for his country than the government of the US has done in a long time.

P.S. if you disagree with my point, before you flame me (after you do this, you are of course welcome to), please tell me three significant undertakings our government has done in the interest of all its citizens, not just redistributing power or wealth from one sector to another.

However,
I believe both points are good examples of making a statment with your wallets in the interest of the greater good, and here, if Intel is a dominant chip maker (like MS is to OSes), the quality of the product vs price will drop significantly.

Its not AMD going belly up that has me concerned, its that its market share will become so marginalized that Intel can begin developing many "Intel-Only" features that will become household and buisness standards (via our desire for intels currently supperior product), then regardless of the quality of AMD, we would be more or less forced into buying Intel.

As far as having chip quality competition, it is also useful for AMD to have similar sales figures, as the RD cost per chip obviously decreases each chip sold, so the more they sell, the more RD, the more they can stay quality vs price cometitive with Intel. I do not see this scenario hitting too hard any time soon however, as I am sure AMD's RD budget was miniscule compared to Intel when K7 and K8 were released.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/25/2007 2:23:51 AM , Rating: 1
......Isnt giving refunds to the people WHO ACTUALLY PAID TAXES IN ENOUGH OF A HELP TO THEM?!!! Redistribution my a$&!! With tax refunds, you get back proportionally what you pay in, and since the richest 10% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes, it would stand to reason that they would get more back wouldn't it?

So, tax refunds, unification of CIA and FBI into one department so that the miscommunication and screwups of the pre911 intellingence does not occur again, the destruction of the Soviet Union and the threat it posed to us and our way of life, the entering and providing the forces and material needed to win the First and Second World Wars. I can go on, but that is four. So, I think you need to rethink your position.

While I do admit that I find the dictatorial path to be one I would enjoy aspiring to, I must admit that it is fraught with peril as you will always wind up with a man, like good ol' Chavez, that is an abomination and an embarassment to the office he holds and the power that it can wield.

While Chavez may do good things for his people, realize this: Hitler was very popular with his people too. He did things with the interests of his people at mind as well;such as setting their economy back on the road (one of the fastest, biggest, and most impressive economical about-faces of the century), stabalizing their political system, infusing a sense of worth and pride back into a beaten people all while he was gassing Jews at the same time. Just because his people loved him it did not make him any less of a monster. The same is true for Chavez.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/25/2007 3:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with your argument is that the tax refunds were not scaled based on the amount of taxes paid (ie everyone got 10% of their taxes back). What the refunds did is scale down the bracketed taxes. In other words, the ultra wealthy pay about 28% of their total income in taxes prerefund, but now pay 25%; meanwhile the poorest pay about 12% of their income in taxes prerefund, but now only pay 11%. I am not saying this will happen, but to analyize the impact, follow the trend further to see what this did. If we keep this up, (continuing these same style tax reductions) the mega wealthy (MW) will pay 10% while the ulta poor (UP) pay 5%, or even further, the MW will pay 3% and the UP pays 3%.

This is a redistribution, no matter how you look at it. Where do these refunds come from? Either cuts in spendings or the government takes our a foreign loan (bonds, etc) to pay for the programs these refunded taxes used to pay for. What does most government spending benefit? Either every citizen equally (things like the military, paying for the FBI, police fundings, etc) or the more disadvantaged citizens (after school programs, welfare, etc). So by reducing the MW's tax burden more than the UP, meanwhile cutting services to the UP more than the MW, wealth has been redistributed from the UP to the MW.

P.S... WWII was a LONG time ago. Yeah, George Washington was a great guy too, but that argument doesn't make a difference in regards to the state of our government now-adays.

And the soviet union posed much less of a threat to us than we were made to belive. The threat was almost entierly economic, not miltarily as many believe. (Albeit they had the military to contend with us, their goal was never to fight us on our soil, rather to defend themselves if neccisary). Communism (in prinicple) works on economies of scale. The larger the socialist economy, the easier it is to have specializations, and the less damaging a slip in any particluar place would be, as there are more economic areas to cover the losses. Communism was trying to expand itself to a sustainable size.

The problem is capitalism requires similar sizes. The more markets, the more a corporation can sell. The more a corporation sells, the more money it makes. There is only a limited number of economies around the world, and both capitalism and communism needed a large portion of them to be sustainable. Hence the feirce competition over economic areas.

Your final point sums up my argument very well though. Yes, as you admit, chavez may do good things for his people. And yes, dictators can be dangerous, as Hitler was (as you pointed out). However, as you said, Hitler did a lot of good for germany, but also commited the Holocaust, which really negates the good he did. However, I don't see Chavez commiting any sort of holocaust at the time being, and have no reason to believe he will do such a thing in the future, so your argument about the downside of this situation is rather moot, leaving only the positive aspects.


RE: Scarey
By Spivonious on 4/25/2007 4:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing personal here, but when you're trying to appear knowledgeable, each mistake in spelling or grammar takes away from your accountability.

As far as tax brackets go, where did you get your data? 68% of all statistics are made up.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 11:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

The statistics were made up, they were intended to reflect the effect the tax cuts will have. If you wish to check my numbers, take the average tax break provided divided by the average income earned.

Also, I need not mention the effect the decrease in corporate gains and estate taxes will have on the MW vs the UP.

As for nothing personal, I doubt you have brought to attention other's grammatical mistakes. And please, for my sake, don't just say I have them, point them out.

P.S. this sounded rather argumentative, my intention is only to have a logical discussion.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/25/2007 8:07:58 PM , Rating: 1
-You said name 3 things.......and I did. If you want to redefine rules after you start the game, than I think you need to find a new place to play.

-And actually, you are incorrect; the only one I can think of off the top of my head right now is Fox News a%$ Bill ORielly, and he paid $0.66 on every dollar he made to Uncle Sam, before he had to pay out the state he lives in. That is the burden the higher classes are under. And if you want to get technical, people who got the most back were actually the ones who pissed and moaned about not getting a refund......because they put nothing in.

-Also, the refund comes almost totally from the IRS collecting too much in taxes. The smaller part comes from the govt cutting spending (they do not really like to do that.......). IRS dosnt care about collecting too much...its either spent or returned, and its no skin off their nose.

-And on the Soviet Union thing....you need to take U.S. History 101, or even World History 101. The problem with the Communist program is that people are there to take advantage of the fact that all are 'equal'ly dirt beneath the priveledged few. There is NO way up the ladder, as in capitalism.

-And yes, they were a very very very real threat....they had just as many nukes as we did.....they had a military that may not have been engaging us in battle, but was fighting us from behind the scenes in every conflict we got involved in (Iran/Iraq war, Vietnam, etc., the Cold War...).

-And no, they were trying to fight us as far away from their homeland as possible, not merely trying to defend themselves (*cough*Berlin blockade*cough*). We had a treaty line that they agreed to beforehand, and they just wanted that side of Berlin too.

-A real problem with the Soviet system was that it was inefficient....when big projects failed, they were covered up so nobody would see the failure, and so every project based on said failed project went under as well.....to be covered up. Also, the big issue was that the Communist Soviet system was horrendously inefficient in its ability to generate and spend capital....with only a few higher ups and no answerability to the masses, corruption was much much more ramapnt (*cough* missing suitcase nukes sold for personal profit *cough*). Not saying that our system is the perfect one, it just works towards idealistic goals better in a real world than the alternative did.

-Furthermore, know this: the maniacal dictators are usually not found out about their darker sides until it is far too late. Hitler's death camps were not really known to the average German for quite a while after WWII started....Saddams torture chambers were whispered about, but never proven.....Slobodan Milosovic and his death squads.....Stalins prisons and Gulags were suspected, but not admitted to until after the USSR fell (millions were kidnapped and sentenced here, and millions died for the sake of the 'motherland' you think was so grand too). So dont say to me that just because he isnt doing anything bad right now with his absolute power that he either wont or isnt already.

So derwin, if you want to debate these issues, go to your library and do a little research before buying the party line. Do a little research on the other absolute dictators of history (I am talking about ones that have siezed power or been voted it by a legislature; if I see a GWB anywhere I will be taking a very quick roadtrip) and see that many of them commited some very nasty human rights violations. There may have been some good ones, but on the whole, each good one is overshadowed by three or four purely evil dictators. So no, you are wrong; It is definitely not worth the risk.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 11:28:32 AM , Rating: 1
What party line am I quoting?

Secondly, my point about WWII being a long time ago should have been explicit via my reference to George Washington.

You are right, the soviet system did not work. Does that mean another attempt at it would fail?

They existed as a threat in that they COULD fight us. My point is that I have sincere doubts that the WOULD. Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq-Iran, etc, none of which were initiated by us, yet we intervened against the USSR. I do not see one event here where they initated a fight against us. Secondly, all of the battles were fought over areas which we did not control. IE were not really communist nor capitalist, but more agrarian or nomadic (with the exception of Iran/Iraq, but that was not initiated by either side).


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 1:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and PS, as long as the internet remains uncensored in Columbia, there is a much greater chance of the world finding out about any sort of attrocities Chavez would commit than we could have 80 years ago.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 1:17:18 AM , Rating: 1
PPS:

Guess what stuff dictators censor first? Media and communications outlets........

Look at China and the limitations that they are starting to place on gaming time.......on television......on media.......Kinda harkens back to the old USSR doesn't it? When reading the wrong thing could get you vanished?

There is always a time after a tyrant comes to power where things seem great....then he starts cracking down on some little things....then some other things closely related to the first thing....then a few more things.....after a few years of little things, suddenly the safeguards vanish and viola, you have no way to get him out.

That was how the USSR went as well derwin. Started out great, but with the excuse of making it "better" things were taken away and limited. Why start out again on the same path when you know where the path leads?

Are you an art major? Because I am an engineer, albeit a barely graduating one, and in the engineering field we look at how stuff behaves in the past and if it has followed a clear pattern, we are safe in making the assumption that it will continue to follow this pattern in the future. My sister is an art major, and quantum leaps like this one are just beyond her.......

Also, WWII is VERY relevant.....That was what got us out of the Great Depression....It got us to the econimic might that we have today.....It got us the superpower status that allowed us to oppose the Soviet Union and make it so that all of Europe didnt fall under Stalin's sway the moment Nazi Germany fell (*cough* again, look at the Berlin blockade *cough*). They were quite aggressive there, for NO reason, and in many other situations, so dont give me the whole "but communists are great because they are all equal and peaceful" party line (this is the one I was referring to by the way).

And also, we intervened to try and keep the spread of communism contained. If it was so great, than how come the nations that communism was exported to are failing economically? Cuba was a well to do nation before Castro. China was an econonomic boom town.....and now that they have a capitalistic economy, they are again (and yes, the do have a capitalistic economy now, they just have communist government, so they are just losing their gains to corruption instead). Europe has been trying socialism, and look at where it has gotten them? Airbus is hemorrhaging cash and customers....they have banded together to keep their currency worth something (which now that they are combined, it finally is)......they are paying the union strongarmed fees for a full weeks pay for 1/2 a weeks work.......So yeah, the whole 'if you dont succeed, try try try again' addage doesnt work here if the same mistakes are repeatedly made. The problem muust be addressed, and since the problem is the system, it can not be addressed, so burn the system and go with the only one that has been somewhat stable for the past few centuries.

Capitalism ftw.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/27/2007 1:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
Cuba mind you also has one of the strongest healthcare systems in the world. It is also economically failing because we have placed massive trade embargos against them.

The other difference is Chavez is not a dictator. His term is limited. If I remember correctly it is like 4 years, and after that, the parliment has an option to extend it for another 4 years, and then it is over.

My point about the internet is that we would see that happening, it is not something he could slip under the table. Until he does, we cannot complain about it.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/28/2007 6:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
And before the Castro era, they were actually a very clean, content, and bustling economical nation. My father toured through there and said it was a great place before it decended into the chaos it is in now. And they have one man and one man only to thank for it. And if it is such a great place, with such great 'care' for its people, then why is it seeming like every time you turn around there is another raft filled to sinking washing up on Florida's shores full of people wanting a better life?


RE: Scarey
By rcc on 4/26/2007 2:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are right, the soviet system did not work. Does that mean another attempt at it would fail?


Hopefully we'll never know.

However, one of the classic definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The conflicts during the "Cold" war were all by proxy. "They" wanted to expand, in influence or territory, "We" didn't want them to. Neither of the superpowers wanted a direct confrontation because, as has been noted once or twice, no one wins a nuclear war. However, had "we" not stood up to "them" time and time again, they'd have kept pushing until they thought we were weak enough to take that risk.

I lived through it, yes, I believe it. Revisionist histories to the contrary.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 10:17:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
However, one of the classic definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


Have you ever heard of practice? I think your definition of "insanity" is a very weak argument. The first attempts at democracy (ala The French Revolution) failed misserably as well. But alas, we tried and tried again.

To allude to your inept argument - one of the saddest states to see to see a human being in is one in which they are so despondent that they refuse to try something again after they have failed.

Have you ever offered a person a hand after they have fallen? What if they said "No, last time I tried standing up, I fell down. It just isn't worth it."

Us not wanting them to expand is not exactly a direct threat to us, but a perceived one. Have you ever walked past a squirel? It is in such a state of self presevation that you merely walking past it causes it to flee in fear. I am not attempting to revise history, I am merely saying that the fear you felt then does not by neccisity imply the fear was a rational one.

For an example. I am sure you are familiar with Exxon-Mobil's buying of patents for alternative energy solutions. Those solutions pose a threat to Exxon-Mobil's oil income. Of course, this example implies one solution (alternatives to oil) as being inatley superior to the status quo (oil), however, it is hard to argue that socialism is a worse or better idea than capitalism, when in fact, we have yet to see a working socialist nation. But wait, we have. Look at two of the top three countries as rated by the UN for quality of life. Sweeden and Norway, both extreemely socialist countries.

I am not saying capitalism is a bad idea, but I also belive it is ignorant to say it is the be all and end all of economic models.

Is socalism a good idea? It has worked and it has failed, so the jury is still out.

Chavez is not doomed to failer ala Stalin's misdeeds, nor is he garunteed sucecess. Only time will tell. To state that you know otherwise lands your comments into everyone's disregard, just as those of anyone else who claims to know the future.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 3:50:42 AM , Rating: 1
Dude, go get some real world experience and then come back to this place we all call reality.

Socialism is not an answer; it has only blown hideous amounts of money, and then been reined in. Communism is also not an answer, as it has failed every time it was tried, and always in the same way. The previous poster is more than correct in saying that insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Your motto of try try try again is valid......ONLY if you realize where you messed up and try to fix the issue. Well dude, Communism and Socialism ARE the issue that needs to be fixed. To fix it is to not use them. PERIOD.

The difference between our attempt at democracy and the French Revolution was that we actually had a plan fairly quickly after gaining our independence.....the first one stunk, but we wanted to move forward, so we tried something new, learning from our previous mistake.......the French on the other hand were far more interested in killing the people who had suppressed them....not in securing freedoms. That is why they just foundered for years until a TYRANT came along and suplanted the government, declaring himself Emperor and starting a major war, which inevitably he lost.

World History 101 pal. The Rise of Napoleon. The only real way that a tyrant can keep his people under control is to be waging a perpetual war.....this creats jobs for an army, and for the infastructure needed to maintain it. If this industry dies, the tyrant loses power because his people see how bad he is and they do not have a war to distract them anymore. Communism suffers from the exact same flaw.

Are you also going to have to take a class in Logic 101 too? If you wait for an enemy that you know exists and wants to do you harm (*cough* actions in Berlin after the end of WWII PROVED THEIR INTENTIONS *cough*) to get strong enough to fight you on your home territory, then you not only have lost, but you are a fool. We KNEW they were a military threat......they had proven this in Berlin and in several other instances around the world. To NOT challenge their attempts at expansion would have been the HEIGHT of idiocy. PERIOD. This means that we were doing a little bit of proactive defense........and it worked.

And you mention SWEDEN and Norway as good quality of life, you only mention the quality of life issue......NOW look at their business front.....and you will see that they are not exactly doing booming business to boost their economies. Quality of life is only something if your government is not hand feeding you everything. With no reward for personal effort that said 'quality of life' is garbage.

And what preytell is the third country.......? Not the nasty ol' Unisted States is it? Because that would just be horrible......

(And do not get me started on the 'alternatives to oil' bs argument. If you just jump into a new idea with no plan, then you are going to fail.....I am an unapologetic engineer, and that is the only logic that makes any sense to me anymore.)

And I am not saying I know what will happen.....I am saying that you can always look at the previous patterns that have been established and tested, and see how things unwound in past similar situations. With the wealth of data that history provides, it is easy to see patterns and it is logical to draw conclusions from them and make educated predictions about how situations currently running or soon to occur may turn out. I am just saying that he has a lot of proving to do before he breaks that rather long streak of tyrants from the historical record before him.

Educated guesses are all we can do in any situation, so the predictions I have drawn, based on a rather large stack of data, is the only logical position to take. I am not saying anything concrete....I am just saying the historical record is vastly against his success as anything but a tyrant.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/27/2007 1:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, we are number 7 and sinking.

P.S. you are interely too infatuated with your own opinions to continue this line of discusion with any rationality.

"Communism" is not bad. Soviet Communism was horrible. You could hardly even call it communism, except that in 1918 the peasants revolted and tried to set up a communist government, but by 10 years later, that was through with.

Economic ability is not the be all and end all of life. Like a staving ghost, we gouge ourselves until there is nothing left to eat, and then what? Yes, you need money to do things, but it is not as if those economies are in the dumps, they just are not thriving like they are here. But what has that done to the people whose backs we lift our economy up on?


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/28/2007 6:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
And you just proved my point completely. Communism may start out great, but IT JUST FALLS APART DUE TO THE HUMAN ELEMNT TAKING ADVANTAGE. 10 years and the glorious Bolshevik Revolution had lost its way, and stayed on that path for about 60 years. And we are actually rewarding the people who boost our economy.....they get paid well and they have rights. If you want to try that liberal 'we don't appreciate the people who build our economy up' bs, go and live in the Chinese workforce for a week......that will show you that we actually give a da*( about our workers, and that they do not have it bad by any means.

And I was actually going to say that you are entirely too infatuated with keeping your head in the sand and not looking at the real world to continue this discussion at all. I speak based on historical evidence as I read it....I do not know where you get your ammunition from, but it isnt from anything based in reality.


RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/30/2007 8:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chavez is not doomed to failer ala Stalin's misdeeds, nor is he garunteed sucecess. Only time will tell. To state that you know otherwise lands your comments into everyone's disregard, just as those of anyone else who claims to know the future.


I'm sure surveys done by Stalin showed quality of life there to be the highest in the world. Those kind of surveys tend to be good, but somewhat iffy if you look to see how the rankings were done. Depends a lot on what's thought to be important, how to weigh those things, and what's sufficient (meaning perhaps there are important things not on the criteria list). Not to say any of them are necessarily wrong, but they may be not right at the same time. Somewhat a value-judgment thing. Kind of like elections, why doesn't every election a total 100% vs zero landslide for the better candidate? Same kind of idea, more or less.


RE: Scarey
By snakeInTheGrass on 4/25/2007 8:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
On the AMD vs. Intel side, having the competition is really a very good thing. When you look back at how long CPUs were sitting around 200-300 MHz... then suddenly AMD released cheaper, faster ones and amazingly it turned out that Intel COULD get the P-II to run faster. Wow, who would have thought? For years, AMD has kept the monopoly in line.

Unfortunately, AMD seems to have lost their momentum. For me, while I'd in principal like to buy AMD, I'm so tired of running Windows that I moved to Apple - which locks you into the hardware. I'll take that over running Windows at home any day, sadly for AMD - I've used & developed for Windows for years, and it's just painful to be exposed to. :/

Now to off-topic politics, If your income is largely long-term capital gains, you'll do just fine with the cuts dropping your rate to 15%, and if you're low-income you can expect to get child tax credits back and I assume some other things. If you're in between (married, making from about 100K and up), you'll lose the child credits, dependent deductions, other deductions, and finally hit AMT which will screw you in any case.

http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf

From a voting perspective, it makes great sense- pander to enough people to buy the vote (what's democracy for, right?), and those with enough money to buy influence can create loopholes for themselves at the very top end to not pay as much either. That leaves - well, the middle and upper-middle class. Bonus!

It (un)amusingly enough fits what I've joked I'd run on as a platform - define 'rich' as makeing over $1 a year, so that everyone is finally rich. Quiet a campaign promise, huh? With enough years of not touching the AMT, that's effectively what you can do...

Now, looking into what drew the US into the first and second world wars, it seems to have been as much the huge loans the US had made (and allowed the banks to make, war materiel to be sold on loans, etc.), which it didn't want defaulted on. Wilson was a big pacifist until it looked like the money might disappear and suddenly whatever the Kaiser was up to was really really bad! Freedom! Need to protect the freedom of, ummm, the subjects of the British Empire, or something. Yadda yadda. Come WWII, the noble intentions of a nation that was busy rounding up citizens with Japanese ancestry, drafting into its segregated military, segregating its own society, and whose own colonial interests in the Far East conflicted with those of Japan leading to friction are at least... shades of gray. (Imagine if the our oil-sources TODAY declared a oil-embargo while we're at war - would we act? Japan did when the US did that to it... so, not that Japan was exactly up to do-gooding in China, but if other countries did the same today citing our invasion of Iraq as a reason, would we not act too?)

Note that I do think that the world was better off with the U.S. winning than the alternatives (neither Japan nor Germany were exactly warm and fuzzy in their expansions), I just don't think the involvement is as altruistic as all that... (U.S. light gray, others fairly dark gray?) For all the rounding up or segregation, the U.S. wasn't busy then killing the people in its camps (unlike Hitler - or our ally Stalin).

And as a final off topic - I think some people loved Hitler, many didn't, and when you fear for your family or yourself if you speak out, it turns out that it doesn't take a whole lot of love to be in power - a lot of fear will work really well too. Picture your own wife / kids / parents threatened if you say something or act - most people will just shut up. Especially after the first set of neighbors disappears... a relative of mine once commented to another one 'of course people knew there were people being killed in the camps' (he lived near one as a boy and heard gunshots). The other relative said 'no, people didn't know. who did you tell?'. 'Well, nobody, we would all have been shot.' Not that the economic about-face and all weren't impressive, but I don't think so many people went to the Eastern front to die out of enthusiasm too far into that mess.


RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/30/2007 8:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not just redistributing power or wealth from one sector to another


Unless wealth is created by a government (be in business itself manufacturing, selling, etc making a profit with which to spend) then all it CAN do is to get wealth from somebody to spend it on whomever it wants to do things for (in effect distributing it in their direction).

I think redistribution of wealth to the NASA employee families was a good thing, for instance.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/25/2007 2:12:44 AM , Rating: 1
Innocent?!!

The Palestinian terror groups are anything but. Palestine has LOST its two wars for the annihilation of the state of Isreal. The entire Arab world has attacked Isreal twice and failed to destroy it. Isreal, by all rights, has the ONLY legitimate claim to that land as it WON it in the 6 Days War. And it was attacked FIRST!!! It won the right to exist, and every civilized country around the world has recognized Isreal as a legitimate state. All except the Arab states, who attack Isreali WOMEN AND CHILDREN WITH ROCKETS AND HOMICIDE BOMBERS LIKE THE COWARDS THAT THEY ARE! If anyone out there says that they are anything but cowards, I say then why the heck do they always cover their faces whenever they appear in public? Might it be so that they can not be recognized and punished for what they do?

If you win wars to exist, you should not have to be subjected to daily homicide bombings hitting your civilians. If you want to deal with things in a violent manner, grow some stones and fight the military in civilized combat.....or might it be that they are deathly afraid of getting whooped again like they were in the 60's and 70's? So, in response to your comment, it is a rather black and white issue......unless you side with the arabs, then it suddenly develops other colors......funny huh?!

So dude, next time you think about atrocities, think about mortar rounds being lobbed by a group of cowards who are members of a state that is run by an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Black and white dude. (And the Palestinians have butchered more Isrealis in times of peace than the other way around, so go check some facts.) In short, I guess I would like to quote somebody in saying that 'You can only push grey so far until black and white have no meaning.'

Sorry for the long post, but people who always cry foul against Isreal because they 'kill innocent Palestinian babies' piss me off because those innocent Palestinians put an international terrorist group in control of their 'state' and they still want everyone to recognize them as legitimate. I call foul on that.


RE: Scarey
By Emryse on 4/25/2007 2:39:29 AM , Rating: 3
First of all: you are ignorant. I hope our distinguished readers have the decency of rating your comment to the appropriate level it deserves.

Second of all: If you think the only reason "Arabs" cover their faces in cowardice - you are sadly mistaken. It is a sign of propriety and most women who do so now in the Middle East choose to do so. Your entire post clearly shows that you have no concept of whom an "Arab" person would be.

Thirdly: With regards to your accusing them of being cowards due to their "guerrilla-style" fighting, why don't you go look up "Bosnia" or "Hiroshima"? Are you actually trying to tell me that the United States has never mass-murdered innocent civilians during a war? So then I guess your next logical step would be to say Americans are cowards too?

Finally - if you knew your history correctly, you would know that a.) Israel took the land from the people who lived there first in Biblical times, b.) the Romans wiped them out in the early A.D. and Israel ceased to exist as a nation, c.) when Israel again became a nation after WWII, they again took the land from the people inhabiting it (Palestinians), and d.) they forced those Palestinians to exile in places like Jordan (where they were considered aliens and refused immigration status).

Now - both sides have committed acts that make it very difficult to find a peaceful solution to the problem. But be that as it may, unfortunately the main problem is this:

Both Israelis and Palestinians believe they are entitled to the SAME area of land. Choosing to simply relocate (for EITHER side) is simply OUT of the question! That is why the conflict is on-going, and will remain as such.


RE: Scarey
By mrteddyears on 4/25/2007 11:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
Hi I may be wrong but did the british give the land to israel ?


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/25/2007 3:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah


RE: Scarey
By OrSin on 4/25/2007 4:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
NO. THe british gave the land to Jiont Gov formed for both Jews and Arabs. The Jews didn't want to share start terrorist attacks ont he new goverment and the remaining british troops. This was done during WWII. Britian didnt have th resources to stop the fighting. After WWII the UN gave the land to teh Jews becasue the Holocast. If not for the Holocast the UN would have been fighting the Jewish forces thier. So in the end everyone was is wrong.
Jews for the orginial fighting and the Arabs for vowing never to give up fighting.


RE: Scarey
By Dactyl on 4/25/2007 10:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NO. THe british gave the land to Jiont Gov formed for both Jews and Arabs. The Jews didn't want to share start terrorist attacks ont he new goverment and the remaining british troops. This was done during WWII. Britian didnt have th resources to stop the fighting. After WWII the UN gave the land to teh Jews becasue the Holocast. If not for the Holocast the UN would have been fighting the Jewish forces thier. So in the end everyone was is wrong.
Jews for the orginial fighting and the Arabs for vowing never to give up fighting.
The Jews agreed to the United Nations partition plan that would have split "Palestine" into two equal parts, a Jewish half and an Arab half. The Jews agreed to this split and the Arabs rejected it. That was in 1948, AFTER WWII, not "during WWII."

The Arabs then went to war with Israel (the 1948 war) intending to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews (to "drive them into the sea").

The Arabs lost (and again in 1953, and again in 1967, and again in 1973). Not because they were outnumbered (Arabs of course outnumbered the Jews) but because Arabs are terrible at running military operations. The most famous Muslim general ever was Saladin, a Kurd--not an Arab!

Arabs have tried for decades to exterminate the Jews of Israel so they could take the whole thing for themselves. Jews have since day 1 been willing to share.

The Jews agreed to the U.N. partition plan. The Jews agreed to the Oslo peace plan. Each time, the Jews had no "partners for peace" on the Arab side. The Israelis tried to make peace work, but their neighbors only wanted war. That is why there is war. It takes two to dance but it only takes one side to start a war.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 1:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember that since Isreal agreed to split Plaestine, they have since taken the entierty of it and refused to return the other half. That and all the wars they won against the Arabs were more because they had far superior equipment (via US and Europe) than the arabs did.
Now they even have a nuke complements of the US.

If Columbia was arming Mexico to the teeth with better weapons than we had, don't you think we would start getting mad at Columbia?


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 1
Yet again I find myself correcting you derwin.

The reason they refuse to give it back is the THE ARAB STATES AND PALESTINE ATTACKED THEM FOUR TIMES OVER THAT LAND!!!

If you were awarded a settlement and agreed to split it with another person, and shortly thereafter they attacked you in an unprovoked sneak attack, and you beat them back FOUR TIMES, would you be willing to give them back what they had when it is obvious they are going to try and take it ALL again?!

And the Arabs have the same opportunities to get advanced equipment as everyone else, they just chose not to. They have tons of cash due to oil production in a few of their states, so their alliances should have brought cash. They just underestimated the Isreali forces each time, and they paid for it. Hence the reason they are not fighting the Isrealis honorably anymore......they know they will lose again.

Again though; the Isrealis may have been put in a bad place by the UN, and I am not disputing that. It was terrible planning. However, they reached a share agreement with the Palestinians, and they signed said document in good faith. They were willing to give peace a chance. However on FOUR SEPERATE OCCASIONS, they were unprovokedly attacked, and they were victorious each and every time. That right there earns them the right to decide how they are going to parcel out ALL of that land in my book. If they want to give the Palestinians a state, that is their business, and the Palestinians should be grateful for ANYTHING that they get, as their backstabbing should have lost them all rights to that land. Isreal proved they had the right to exist four times over, and they were not the aggressors any of those times.

Remember that. They have paid for the right to live on that land with the blood of their people in wars that they should not have had to fight. End of Discussion.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 4:05:58 AM , Rating: 1
And guy....I was referring to the pussies who cover their faces while making threats to people and beheading them (any terror group committing an act of violence on tape or internet video proves my point). And no, they are not women, so read what I said and understand it before snap responding. UBL and his higher ups do not cover their faces, so I have much more respect for them.

And I am accusing them of being cowards because they hide behind their populace while attacking another populace. In wars, the innocent die. That is why responsible, honorable military men attempt to minimize casualties by keeping away from populated centers, not building a terror infastructure in the middle of them. The Palestinians use their civilians as human shields while attacking other civilians, and I see that as cowardice. They da^& themselves in my eyes by attacking those other civilians, claiming it is justified, and then when their human shield takes hits because they are hunkered down behind it, they cry foul BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THEY PUT IN HARMS WAY GOT HURT!!!! This situation burns me up.

And YOU should check YOUR history.....the modern day Palestinians were NOT from that region initially....they were a people who were kicked out of Jordan...they have as much claim to that land as the Isrealis do now; and besides the fact, they fought repeatedly over it AND LOST EACH TIME. They attacked first with the entire Arab world and the STILL LOST.

I am not saying that this was a situation that should have occurred. It was not a good place to relocate the Jewish exiles after the Holocaust, but the fact of the matter is that the Isrealis have won three wars for their existance, and that buys them legitimacy in my book. They have every right to exist as we did when we fought England for independence.


RE: Scarey
By encryptkeeper on 4/25/2007 10:27:24 AM , Rating: 1
Half the reason Israel is hated in the middle east is because the US unquestionably backs them up. Israel and Palestine are both equally guilty of atrocities, and anyone who thinks one side is guilty and the other innocent is out of their minds.

The US has gone to several countries in the middle east and asked them to make concessions to stop fighting with Israel. But Israel is NEVER pressured by the US to stop bullying the Middle East in return. Their soldiers kill Palestinian soldiers in "border fighting," but those actions aren't investigated to see if there was any wrongdoing.

Thus the essence of the religious war in the middle east. The arab world is heavily prosecuted and pressured by the west to change their way of life. Several countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are in such turmoil, that it's understandable (but in NO way excusable) that (extremeists) should believe blowing themselves up to kill infidels will guarantee them a place in heaven.


RE: Scarey
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 4:11:55 AM , Rating: 1
Six Days War people.....Isreali troops had taken the Golan Heights, were marching into Syria, inflicting total casualties on every Arab army in the region, and were in sight of Cairo Egypt.....when the US called them off.

Yet we never put pressure on them to stop, huh?

And the US backs Isreal because they are a major supplier of US defense dept contracts, and they have much more in common with the US and its interests than the Arab states around them currently do.

And I understand the Isreali position far more than I can the Palestinian one because the Isrealis arent hiding behind their civilians all the while hocking rockets over the border into civilian centers and preaching death to their enemy because they call their god by another name. Yes, both sides have committed atrocities, but the Arab terrorist side is not allowing the conflict to close by continuing to murder to bystanders.


RE: Scarey
By Ryanman on 4/27/2007 12:36:33 AM , Rating: 1
ahh I vote Israel on this one.
Did they start it? yeah. Do the Arabs break EVERY SINGLE CEASCEFIRE that's engineered? ummhmm.
I consider stabbing people in the back worse than defending a country. And the Palistinians have killed wayyy more civillians than the israelites have.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/28/2007 6:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ryanman, I greet you Brother......

You said it better than I could have.

Hail to a kindred spirit with views like mine.


RE: Scarey
By EarthsDM on 4/24/2007 11:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't shop at Citgo for similar reasons (being that they're effectively owned by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and he has known ties to the terrorist group Hamas).


I'm sorry, but your comment has no basis in reality.


RE: Scarey
By jarman on 4/24/2007 11:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but your comment has no basis in reality.


I'm not sure that your logic has a basis in reality...


RE: Scarey
By PandaBear on 4/24/2007 9:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am in the same boat, trying to buy a S939 since I already have PC3200 ram, but I can't find a damn 939 board to go with that is not known for reliability problems.

Damn it, what is going on?


RE: Scarey
By shabby on 4/24/2007 10:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Were you supporting intel and buying p4's when the opty was slaughtering it?


RE: Scarey
By exanimas on 4/24/2007 11:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
Just because AMD was performing better than Intel at that time, doesn't mean it was the underdog. Even at its peak, Intel still had well over double the market share AMD had, mainly due to the fact that several of the major OEMs sold Intel exclusively.


RE: Scarey
By Ringold on 4/24/2007 11:39:39 PM , Rating: 4
Has Intel ever been an underdog? For the entire time that AMD has the performance crown, Intel was still dominating the market, and thus not deserving, or even in need of, the enthusiast market giving them pity purchases.

I for one will make any new builds Barcelona based later this year. The performance delta isn't massive anyway, so the hit to my epeen will be minimal. :P


RE: Scarey
By encryptkeeper on 4/25/2007 10:09:34 AM , Rating: 2
This is true. Unfortunate but true. If Intel crushes AMD and no one takes their place be prepared for processor technologies to almost stop moving altogether and for prices to skyrocket. Intel wants to do the same thing that Microsoft does, where it is the main provider for it's product so they can manipulate the market at will.


RE: Scarey
By cheburashka on 4/25/2007 3:20:36 PM , Rating: 1
I'm suprised you know exactly what Intel would do if ever in such a position. Pure baseless speculation on your part.


RE: Scarey
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2007 4:47:24 PM , Rating: 3
Intel is the main provider of the product, Microsoft has 92% of it's market and Intel has 80%. A mere 12% difference. Intel can manipulate the market in any way it wants, don't think for a second that AMD was ever in any position to prevent them from doing so. (Notice AMD is currently suing for anti-trust practices) Intel (pending outcome of this trial) did to one degree or another manipulate the market and AMD is arguing that in court.

In any case, Intel can't just stand still, the demand for technological advancement grows each year and Intel has to meet that demand or come under fire. The microprocessor market is too large a playing field for Intel to become complacent, their last CEO sucked we know this. The new CEO knows exactly how to grip the market, and that is technological advancement, and Intel does that very well.


RE: Scarey
By Lugaidster on 4/24/2007 9:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you actually overclock, which I don't. Your comment, at least for now, isn't accurate. At least this case, makes AMD provide more bang for the buck:

quote:
AMD has reduced the AMD A64 X2 5600+ price by 42%, which makes it a heck of a bargain. The 5600+ out performs the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Processor in price performance, thanks to its new lower price.


http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/1/

I repeat, that's for now. It can change...


RE: Scarey
By irev210 on 4/24/2007 9:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
that legitreviews.com review is completely flawed

They did that review a week after AMD lowered their price and 2 days before intel lowered theirs.

They should be comparing a $199 core 2 duo E6600 or a $179 E6320

http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4893660
With the new price drops, 199 shipped for E6600 is awesome

Both price changes where known months ahead in advance.

Shit like this really pisses me off. I dont care who is better than who, I just want fair/balanced reporting.


RE: Scarey
By Lugaidster on 4/24/2007 10:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
It could be, but at least be fair while comparing prices:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

In which case, I would say legit have a point. Of course, if you wish to pay a few bucks more you'd probably end up with a much faster E6600. But to be fair, compare both processors that are at the same price point.


RE: Scarey
By Lugaidster on 4/24/2007 10:49:09 PM , Rating: 3
On a side note, last I heard, Intel's price drop for E6600 was from $316 to $224 so I find the $199 price you quoted to be unrealistic.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38...

And at that price it would compete with X2 6000+. Anyway, don't be so quick to bash others people work without reading it completely. Legit did clearly say it would review their article once Intel launched it's new processors and dropped their prices.

In the current context, I would say that (worst case scenario) if you buy a mid-range gaming PC, you wouldn't be wasting money by going with AMD. And even gain a little bang for your money, but that's debatable.


RE: Scarey
By irev210 on 4/24/2007 11:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On a side note, last I heard, Intel's price drop for E6600 was from $316 to $224 so I find the $199 price you quoted to be unrealistic.


I didnt decide the price, that was a promotion that fry's/outpost.com was running.

They appeared to have run out of stock and removed the E6600 retail box from their website.


RE: Scarey
By Crank the Planet on 4/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Scarey
By spartan014 on 4/24/2007 10:50:18 PM , Rating: 3
I can be described as a mild AMD fan, not a fanatic and the recent performance of AMD leaves much to be desired..

But it is nothing compared to the ignorant babble in this post. I suggest you check what you are saying before posting.


RE: Scarey
By Shintai on 4/25/2007 3:23:35 AM , Rating: 1
You do know AMD didn┬┤t innovate with either fusion or the memory controller on die?

The first chip with an ondie memory controller was 386Sl followed by 486SL. 20 years too late for "innovation".


RE: Scarey
By theapparition on 4/25/2007 10:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'll add to the already posted comments.

There is no denying the benefits of an on-die controller. However, as enthusiasts, you can sometimes have tunnel-vision. Intel chose not to go with the IMC, simply because it offers more platform flexibility. At the time, it was more important in their roadmap, to offer flexible bussing and memory configurations. Next year, you'll see the IMC back in the Intel designs.

HT - Intel has CSI, although from the specs I've seen, HT is still superior.

Actual hardware Dual core - Dubious performance benefits today, all while allowing Intel to increase yeilds, while lowering manufacturing costs. So the price cuts don't hurt them as bad as it does AMD. Since I love car analogies: Does it matter if you have a high tech DOHC engine or a low tech push-rod, if the pushrod makes more power and has better fuel economy. Do you care about the technology, or the end result?

I'm hoping Barcelona will perform competitively, we need the competition. However, facts are facts, and you just spewed garbage.


RE: Scarey
By dandres87 on 4/25/2007 12:56:33 AM , Rating: 1
'less ur an uber nerd who spends more than 250 on your CPU AMD has better price/performance. You dont give someone a hard time because they buy a "lesser performing" Camry when the could have got an Accord. It's really a matter of preference. I say go AMD to keep prices competitive. A competive market is best for the consumers, not one where someone gets creamed.


RE: Scarey
By tekzor on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Scarey
By CheesePoofs on 4/24/2007 9:52:43 PM , Rating: 5
Even multimillion dollar corporations go bankrupt. Just because they're huge doesn't make them invulnerable.


RE: Scarey
By mlittl3 on 4/24/2007 11:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Dude are you an idiot. AMD just lost 611 million dollars last quarter. That means after they paid all their accoutants, engineers, janitors, etc. and bought all their toilet paper and office supplies from the money they made, they still lost 611 million dollars. That makes them a negative multimillion dollar company. Do you not understand this?


RE: Scarey
By Spivonious on 4/25/2007 4:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be pretty happy if I could lose $611M and still be operating.


RE: Scarey
By theapparition on 4/25/2007 10:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
Can you say Enron, Worldcom,......need I go further?


RE: Scarey
By TomZ on 4/25/2007 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Difference there was fraud.


RE: Scarey
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2007 4:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, that wasn't an issue of loss. That was an issue of them losing for years and using "Creative Accounting" AKA Lieing through their teeth to cover up this fact. AMD is just coming out and saying that they are taking losses and not hiding the fact.


RE: Scarey
By danz32 on 4/24/2007 9:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
Competition is the consumer choosing the better product in the marketplace. Then, the company who loses customers will change and make a better product or service.

This occured with Intel...AMD came up and made people switch to them, but Intel fired back. The question is, can AMD make a better product to challenge Intel? If they can't, it is their problem not yours to have to support them.


RE: Scarey
By CrystalBay on 4/24/2007 11:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
I just made a killer Chicken Ranchero does that make me an ugly caveman too..

GEICO


RE: Scarey
By Emryse on 4/25/2007 1:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
1. You are correct when you say competition is necessary.

2. However, your attempt to stimulate competition through purchasing AMD is a failure at best, and here's why:

What will encourage AMD to compete will be the fact that you choose "NOT" to buy their product!

Competition (that is favorable to the consumer) is successful when two companies attempt to create the BETTER product - and in this manner earn your money. When you give them your money, you are in a sense "awarding" them as being the best choice and therefore the best product. If you buy their product at a level of performance that is not truly "the best", then you are in a sense telling that business that they don't need to try harder than that to earn your business.

When people purchase based upon performance, they encourage the businesses to push for technological advancement. When you purchase for economy, you recieve this at the cost of performance. If a business is successful, they will not give you more performance at a lesser cost. AMD for a few years attempted to do this; that is not good business sense, and we're seeing that unfold with the current ongoing pummeling AMD is recieving from Intel.

ALSO for the "AMD is better in performance for the price" folks - you're really (and myself as well in the above argument) comparing apples to oranges. The "performance" segment and the "economy" segment are really two different competition arenas all together. Supporting AMD with your dollar in the "economy" class will not encourage AMD to push further in the "performance" class.

Bottom line: AMD strategy has always been economic costing first and performance second. Intel conversely focused on performance first and pricing second, and now they have such a huge margin in performance-based offerings that they can also afford to scale back pricing in economic segments that offer a better deal for the consumer.


RE: Scarey
By justjc on 4/25/2007 3:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
On the other hand the money AMD get, by some of us buying their products, means their losses aren't so big that their product development will be influenced.


RE: Scarey
By nah on 4/25/2007 10:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD strategy has always been economic costing first and performance second. Intel conversely focused on performance first and pricing second,


Since 1999 this has not been true--=only when Core2Duo came up has Intel been able to beat AMD on the desktop--otherwise, not allowing for SSE/2/3/ optimisations, performance has been equal, with FP perf going to AMD---check out Toms Hardware where they test both the Athlon and the P III and on 3dsMax6 AMDs FP performance was 33% higher--i wish i could find the link


RE: Scarey
By Biggie on 4/25/2007 9:34:04 AM , Rating: 3
This is a nightmare of AMD own making, if they had kept producing S939 CPUS people would have gladly upgraded to a faster dual core instead of doing a full platform update to C2D.


RE: Scarey
By darkpaw on 4/25/2007 10:42:27 AM , Rating: 3
Bingo! We have a winner!

I would have bought an upgrade to my 3800+, however since AMD screwed me over by dropping support for the 939 when I am forced to upgrade it will be to a C2D setup.

AMD really hosed a lot of customers and if you're going to be forced to do a full upgrade to DDR2, most people are going to go with the best then can get.


RE: Scarey
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/26/2007 9:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
People like you are funny. Let me see if I got this straight.

1. Intel uses its brute force to manipulate the market to switch to DDR2.

2. AMD had no choice to abandon DDR because Intel, who owns the vast majority of the market, abandoned DDR long before.

3. You reward Intel's tactics by buying their products and giving them even MORE market share! lol

4. (hypothetical) If AMD somehow manages to claw its way back, and then Intel forces the memory market to switch again (to DDR3) before its time, what will you do then?? Blame AMD?


RE: Scarey
By darkpaw on 4/27/2007 9:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
Would be good points if DDR3200 wasn't still available and cheap. Its not like its just gone away.

Theres also no reason why AMD couldn't have continued to produce both version of their chips. It was their choice to stop producing 939 dual cores all together. They could have continued to build the 939s at older fabs while producing the AM2s at the newer/retooled ones, just like they had continued to support the previous socket while producing 939s.

AMD made the choice to completely eliminate the 939 based CPUs while they could have continued to sell upgrades to the millions of people that had a heavy investment in the technology. The upgrade to DDR2 made almost zero performance difference to AMD. Intel didn't "brute-force" the market into adopting DDR2 earlier then needed, it actually made a performance difference for their CPUs due to the external memory controller so why wouldn't they upgrade to the faster memory? AMD is the one that upgraded for no real gain, they did it mostly due to OEMs wanting to buy the same memory for both platforms.

If they had continued to support the 939 architecutre for a while instead of killing it almost immediately, there wouldn't have been the backlash from a lot of people like myself that supported AMD when their dual cores were rather high priced.

As for rewarding Intel's tactics, I'm not. I reward whoever has the better product on the market with my money and at this time that is Intel. Over the past 6 years I've bought one Intel processor and about 12 AMD processors, because AMD was the better choice. With the recent price cuts the performance indexes are about even, however Intel has had the better track record with boards being compatible with future versions. Even if they did switch to DDR3 as you mentioned, the DDR2 platforms won't disappear overnight as they did with AMD.


RE: Scarey
By Fanon on 4/25/2007 11:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
That is exactly right. I have 2 S939 computers, and while C2D has the performance crown, I would've bought S939 CPUs if AMD still produced them to avoid buying new RAM and a new motherboard. But since I had to anyway, I'm going with the company that had the best performance for the price.


RE: Scarey
By Roy2001 on 4/25/2007 3:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
I applaued for you decition to pay extra money for less performance to keep the competition so we can enjoy superb Intel CPU's, at least, at this time.


RE: Scarey
By Kaleid on 4/25/2007 4:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well, don't expect me to purchase a new CPU all too often ;)
Like I said previously, more and more I find that I do not need ├╝berperformance.


Hi
By thepinkpanther on 4/25/2007 6:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
I have been a amd user, must admit now I am using c2duo. Its simply better than any amd processor in speed and power usage.

Its really a nervebreaking time in the processor area.

To sum it up. If Amd/ATI goes down then likely 2 scenarios could happend.

1. Amd dies or must throw in the towel in further research and just gets a cyrix look alike...a processor that is a long way behind the leader.

ATI gets sold or get on their own again.

2. Amd dies or must throw in the towel in further research and just gets a cyrix look alike...a processor that is a long way behind the leader.

ATI take a huge hit from the combined losses and goes down aswell as AMD.

We now have a monopoly on both cpu and gpu.
Intel will very fast double, triple prices and research is going very slow. The company solidates its position and get aggressive to stop any attempt to reach its status. Its a Microsoft look alike but witht the very different approach. you simply cant make a chip in a few years that can compete with intels...so basically they will stay market leader for a long time...

Nvidia knows that since ATI has gone down or they have bought the best technologies from them that they are the gpu king. They can do the same as Intel does. double, triple the prices, put research on very slow.

Conclusion
If AMD/ATI goes down then we see a katastrofic development in the computer area. Likely the computer games playing days is over. The hardware prices will skyrocket and consoles is the only solution. The prices is already high enough at the moment so any increase in prices will just make it even worse.

The only persons that would like a amd/ati shutdown is the economic morons that cant see the effects from a duopol to a monopoly. Well if you would want to pay twice, triple the amount for the same hardware plus you want to do the same to the gpus. plus there is not a new graphics card with more than 5-10procents increase for every new generation then...cross fingers. Its written on the wall...what would happen.




RE: Hi
By pcmech2007 on 4/25/2007 9:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
Very well said.

It doesn't take a genius to see what will happen if AMD goes under.

All these Intel fanboys will be paying triple but will be smiling and begging to get screwed in the arse some more.

"May I please have another"


RE: Hi
By just4U on 4/25/2007 10:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite ...

While I do agree that things would slow down technologically on both fronts, and prices would rise. These companies want you to continue to buy. If they are not giving you any reason to... then naturally your not going to. So they'd still continue to bring out newer and better stuff but .. it would be probably at a slower rate with alot more emphasis put on advertising to make the sale.


RE: Hi
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2007 10:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
No, you guys seem to not understand a capitalist market very well. Intel would be hard pressed to raise the price of processors and still sell the volume they need to sell. It's really a matter of supply and demand.

If Intel raises prices too far, people would upgrade less, and Intel would make less money. No, prices just wouldn't be likely to "drop as fast" but they wouldnt double or tripple from what they are currently at. That would be a bad business decision and Intel knows that.

Here is a good example for you. Microsoft Office. I can go down to the store and pickup a copy of MS Offoce for $150 + Tax. That lets me install it on 3 home machines, and includes Word, Excel, and Powerpoint.... Microsoft did this on their own to maintain market dominance, there was no "pressure" from "competition", Microsoft HAS NO COMPETITION in the Office Productivity market (Don't even mention Open Office, if you have ever used it, you know full well it can't even compete with Office 97, much less 2003 or 2007). Simply put, Microsoft can lower its prices to make them more appetizing for home users and students to buy it's standard 3 Office apps which most kids need these days to get through school. They could have left the prices high but by lowering them, the little they lost in margin will be offset by volume.

With Intel switching to a 45nm process, they will be able to manufacture CPU chips for probably 40% of the cost of current generation chips, so if Intel really wanted to destroy AMD they very easily could, they could drop prices so they are churning less of a profit and completely kill off AMD. Is this practicaly? Nope. Intel will keep prices on the current lineup, but improve the chips, this lets them maintain current pricing and still increase margins because they can make for less, doesn't mean they have to sell for less right away. Are we going to see a huge price jump from what C2D was when it was released? Nope. I expect the 45nm chips to mirror the pricing that C2D on 65nm launched with last year.

/Rant off


RE: Hi
By glitchc on 4/25/2007 11:47:08 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you haven't used OpenOffice since 1997. OpenOffice 2.2 is quite a refined product. It has a few additional features such as export to PDF, export to Latex, a powerful Tex based equation editor, that endear it strongly to the scientific community to which I belong (grad student in Comp Sci).

The Export to PDF option alone prevents any average user making PDFs from spending extra $299 on Acrobat.

In terms of usability, styles and formatting, as well at type-setting, makes OpenOffice Writer a far better software package for publication purposes. Word is too WYSIWYG for that.

I've used Word for years, all through highschool and undergrad. I finally made the switch to OOffice 3 months ago. The powerful equation editor was the winner for me.


RE: Hi
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2007 4:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has a few additional features such as export to PDF, export to Latex, a powerful Tex based equation editor, that endear it strongly to the scientific community to which I belong (grad student in Comp Sci).

I fail to see how exporting to Latex could be considered a plus. Latex is already an open stand alone application that does its job quite well on it's own. Oh, and the PDF argument is null and void as Office 2007 also contains this feature, as well as the ability to edit existing PDF's (Adobe was not happy and sued over this, too bad they lost).

Depending on which field of Computer Science your in, the argument that your part of the Scientific Community would be an outright fallacy. Be more specific otherwise I have to argue that you are not truly part of the scientific community (I know we love to think we are, but reality is very few of us can really be considered that)

quote:
The Export to PDF option alone prevents any average user making PDFs from spending extra $299 on Acrobat.

See my above rebuttal.

quote:
In terms of usability, styles and formatting, as well at type-setting, makes OpenOffice Writer a far better software package for publication purposes. Word is too WYSIWYG for that.

This you have a point on, Microsoft does not have an industrial grade application for this type of work. You could probably "get by" using Word or Publisher, but nothing fancy.

quote:
I've used Word for years, all through highschool and undergrad. I finally made the switch to OOffice 3 months ago. The powerful equation editor was the winner for me.

I'm not sure which powerful equation editor your talking about here, you will need to clarify.


RE: Hi
By glitchc on 4/25/2007 10:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

I fail to see how exporting to Latex could be considered a plus. Latex is already an open stand alone application that does its job quite well on it's own.


Exporting a Latex is useful for publications in journals such as IEEE and SPIE, which require a Latex document. Writing Latex from scratch can be very painful and time-consuming if you're not used to it (like myself for instance). When a deadline is fast approaching and time is short, it is easier to convert a document full of formulas and charts to Latex, then apply the correct template for the journal one is interested in publishing in. This is definitely not something an average user may regard as a good feature, but it rocks my boat. I will learn Latex hopefully over this summer, and probably not need this feature anymore.

quote:

Depending on which field of Computer Science your in, the argument that your part of the Scientific Community would be an outright fallacy. Be more specific otherwise I have to argue that you are not truly part of the scientific community (I know we love to think we are, but reality is very few of us can really be considered that)


Calling me not part of the scientific community is like calling every post-graduate student in a university not part of the scientific community. This is a dicey proposition, since the bulk of scientific/ academic literature is produced by Masters and PhD. students. Unfortunately, that's not how the media protrays it. The media typically focuses only on the professor whose lab is producing the work. Virtually no one takes footage of the actual lab full of grad students, who do the actual experimentation, analysis and writing/publishing. I do not want to take credit away from the professor, especially since he/she provides funding and the facilities. The professor also provides strong initial ideas to start the research, good guidelines to adhere to, as well as excellent advice when you need it (so long as you have a good supervisor).

If you're wondering about my credentials, I'm an MSc. student in York University (Ontario, Canada). I'm hesitant to divulge further information as I wish to retain my anonymity on a public forum.

quote:

Oh, and the PDF argument is null and void as Office 2007 also contains this feature, as well as the ability to edit existing PDF's (Adobe was not happy and sued over this, too bad they lost).


I concede this point since I have not used any version later than Office 2003. The ability to edit a PDF, however, does not justify the cost of Office = ~$200 (I'm picking an arbitrary figure here) vs. cost of OO = free. This is especially true since I can just edit the source and re-export to PDF. Note that the $150 price point you quoted was for Office 97, which doesn't support PDFs at all.

quote:

I'm not sure which powerful equation editor your talking about here, you will need to clarify.


I was comparing OO's Formula Editor to MS Equation Editor. The Formula Editor is very powerful in that it supports a GUI (like equation editor) where one picks their symbols, and a text-entry for the entire formula, with encapsulation and formatting tags matching the syntax of Tex equations. It's a small learning curve with immediate rewards. The syntax makes the Formula Editor far more powerful than the click and shortcut interface of Equation Editor. Variable names with multiple superscripts and subscripts aren't even supported in Equation Editor, as aren't arbitrary spacings, ability to control font type and font size, as well as a limitation on the special symbols available.


RE: Hi
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/27/2007 8:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exporting a Latex is useful for publications in journals such as IEEE and SPIE, which require a Latex document. Writing Latex from scratch can be very painful and time-consuming if you're not used to it (like myself for instance). When a deadline is fast approaching and time is short, it is easier to convert a document full of formulas and charts to Latex, then apply the correct template for the journal one is interested in publishing in. This is definitely not something an average user may regard as a good feature, but it rocks my boat. I will learn Latex hopefully over this summer, and probably not need this feature anymore.

I can understand where your going with this, I concede the point.

quote:
Calling me not part of the scientific community is like calling every post-graduate student in a university not part of the scientific community. This is a dicey proposition, since the bulk of scientific/ academic literature is produced by Masters and PhD. students. Unfortunately, that's not how the media protrays it. The media typically focuses only on the professor whose lab is producing the work. Virtually no one takes footage of the actual lab full of grad students, who do the actual experimentation, analysis and writing/publishing. I do not want to take credit away from the professor, especially since he/she provides funding and the facilities. The professor also provides strong initial ideas to start the research, good guidelines to adhere to, as well as excellent advice when you need it (so long as you have a good supervisor).

Yea, it sucks like that, but we don't make the rules. I'm in largely the same boat. Although my specialty is more on the Engineering side of things, rather than scientific research.

quote:
If you're wondering about my credentials, I'm an MSc. student in York University (Ontario, Canada). I'm hesitant to divulge further information as I wish to retain my anonymity on a public forum.

That's fine, it doesn't have too much bearing on the issue at hand and your previous paragraph was more than enough explanation.

quote:
I concede this point since I have not used any version later than Office 2003. The ability to edit a PDF, however, does not justify the cost of Office = ~$200 (I'm picking an arbitrary figure here) vs. cost of OO = free. This is especially true since I can just edit the source and re-export to PDF.

True, but free is not always better. It just makes it an acceptable alternative because you aren't paying for it. At similar price points OO would be hard pressed to turn many users away from MS Office.

quote:
Note that the $150 price point you quoted was for Office 97, which doesn't support PDFs at all.

Not to be a hammer wielding zealot, but I'm gonna point you to a few places for "Retail" copies of Office 2007 at that same price point.
Here is the Chart comparison from Microsoft.
http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/content.aspx?ctI...
The one we are looking at here is Office 2007 Home and Student. Microsoft sells it at $150 right there on their site. Here are a few other retail outlets for the same price.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Amazon is selling it at 128.99
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Office-Home-Studen...

That includes One Note 2007, Word 2007, Excel 2007, and Powerpoint 2007. More than enough for the vast majority of users on the market. I'm told this can also be installed on up to 3 computers but I have not yet been able to find that written anywhere.


RE: Hi
By glitchc on 4/25/2007 10:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, with regards to the news article, I am completely in agreement with your point regarding free markets. People should vote for the better product with their dollars. That's the only route to take for continued innovation, otherwise companies just stagnate.


RE: Hi
By Viditor on 4/26/2007 12:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, you guys seem to not understand a capitalist market very well. Intel would be hard pressed to raise the price of processors and still sell the volume they need to sell. It's really a matter of supply and demand

Ummm...I think you need to reread those textbooks.
If AMD went under (can't possibly happen, but as a theory...), then demand for Intel chips would drastically increase. Demand is based more on need than competition, especially when you are dealing with a monopoly.
So if Intel was the sole supplier and they doubled their prices, while overall demand might drop 10-20%, Intel's profits would increase almost 100%. People don't upgrade because it's cheap, they do it because they think it's necessary (and for the largest segment, business, they do it because they need to stay competitive).
quote:
With Intel switching to a 45nm process, they will be able to manufacture CPU chips for probably 40% of the cost of current generation chips

That's WAY off! The real number (at the very best) is more than double that...
1. Penryn dice are only ~25% smaller than the current C2D.
2. They require a much thicker dielectric layer which takes longer to produce (layers are layed down one ADL at a time).
3. The Hafnium layer is more expensive to produce than the SiO2 layer
4. Ramping a whole new manufacturing process produces far lower yields than a mature process (more so for Intel as they don't have APM)


RE: Hi
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/27/2007 11:36:27 AM , Rating: 1
Depends on how much cache they cram onto the chip. Cache however is cheap to make.

Intel wouldn't double their prices.
#1 It would cause the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
#2 It would cause demand to drop.
#3 AMD isn't going anywhere, they might end up relegated to the "Bargain Bin" but they won't be exiting the CPU market anytime soon.


RE: Hi
By Viditor on 4/27/2007 9:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cache however is cheap to make

Huh? Cache is just as expensive as the logic circuits...
quote:
#1 It would cause the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
#2 It would cause demand to drop.
#3 AMD isn't going anywhere, they might end up relegated to the "Bargain Bin" but they won't be exiting the CPU market anytime soon

1. On what legal grounds? The point where the government would step in is before AMD (hypothetically) went under...
2. Demand would drop but profits would soar. If they doubled the price, then demand would have to drop by more than 50% for them to feel any loss.
3. Of course AMD isn't going anywhere...while they did have a cash crunch (which appears to have been avoided with the bond offering), they are now far too strong for Intel to ever put them "back in the box".


The article is missing something...
By Viditor on 4/24/2007 11:00:50 PM , Rating: 6
Brandon, I don't know if you caught this tidbit:

"But the numbers look worse than usual because AMD was forced to get rid of excess inventory in the fourth quarter, which provided plenty of chips for its customers in the first quarter that they would have otherwise had to buy directly from AMD during the quarter, McCarron said. Throw out the inventory problems and AMD's market share still declined, but probably only by 2 percentage points or so , he said"

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6178921.html




By coldpower27 on 4/25/2007 2:38:44 AM , Rating: 1
Heh, that's AMD own problem that it had this issue that made it's marketshare look worse. The original 6% loss stands.


By Micronite on 4/25/2007 10:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think things are as dismal as it sounds.
It took AMD a lot of work to gain the marketshare they did, so you immediately think they blew it and it will take them forever to get back to where they were.
But if you consider how they've penetrated markets previously untouchable, people have warmed up to the "AMD Idea". Once they come out with a product that is competitive in PPP (Price, Performance, and Power), they should find it easier to gain marketshare back.


RE: The article is missing something...
By deeznuts on 4/25/2007 1:09:09 PM , Rating: 4
But in turn didn't this artificially increase their marketshare in the 4th quarter then? And leaves AMD exactly where it stands at the end of the 1st quarter?


RE: The article is missing something...
By Viditor on 4/25/2007 11:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in turn didn't this artificially increase their marketshare in the 4th quarter then? And leaves AMD exactly where it stands at the end of the 1st quarter?

Yes and no...it certainly did artificially inflate Q4, but that inflated amount needs to be pushed forward into Q1 (and it also means that we'll see an AMD marketshare "gain" in Q2 from this artificially created number).
Most of us who crunch the numbers for investments have put the restated Q4 number near the mid 23% and ~21% for Q1. That means that if marketshare remains flat over Q2, the numbers posted will show a 2%+ rise for AMD going into the Barcelona release, which will be just as inaccurate as the 6% drop this quarter (I don't doubt that when this happens, those who feel that "the original 6% loss stands" will quickly change their tune...).

I feel it's also worth mentioning what these numbers mean as well...
These are unit volume marketshare numbers, not revenue share. So for example, the huge number of Celeron 205s (90nm 1.2 GHz) that Intel is currently dumping into China and India for Dell's EC280s are part of this number.
Mind you, AMD's current revenue share is sucking wind as well, but I think that this 6% number is showing a great deal of irrational exuberance on the part of Intel fans...

i.e. Things are bad for AMD at the moment, but nowhere NEAR as bad as some would have you believe. The idea that AMD might go out of business is just as ludicrous as the many posts predicting Intel's demise 5 quarters ago.


RE: The article is missing something...
By coldpower27 on 4/26/2007 9:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
AMD's revenue share is nothing to brag about either, it dropped from 15.7% in Q4 2006 to 11.0% in Q1 2007, as expected given Intel's pricing pressure and the AMD price cuts during Q1.

4.7% doesn't look as bad when your talking absolute wise, but it's actually worse when you look at where it dropped from 15.7%, that's a 30% drop.

Compared to the 25.3% to 19.2% unit share drop assuming all the marketshare came from AMD mind you is only a 24% drop, neither marketshare figure is looking good at the moment.

The idea of Intel going belly up is far more ludicrous then AMD going belly up, as Intel hasn't had a net loss in the absolute longest time.

To be fair to AMD isn't going anywhere either, but their financial situation isn't in the best shape at the moment.


By Viditor on 4/27/2007 10:41:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD's revenue share is nothing to brag about either, it dropped from 15.7% in Q4 2006 to 11.0% in Q1 2007, as expected given Intel's pricing pressure and the AMD price cuts during Q1

I don't believe that's correct...the report I have says that worldwide x86 revenue share in Q4 was 17.1% and Q1 was 12%. That of course is why I said that AMD's revenue share sucked wind...
However, if the Q4/Q1 marketshare unit numbers are skewed, then of course the revenue numbers are equally skewed.


By kilkennycat on 4/24/2007 11:14:41 PM , Rating: 3
1. Overpaid 20% for ATi (per market capitalization at the time of the offer)

2. ATi has carried their chronic new-product late-delivery problems with them. This has crippled AMD's bottom line last quarter in terms of projections vs actual delivery. AMDs stock price has been continuously hammered throughout the last quarter by ATi's non-performance.

3.The acquisition of ATi has diluted AMDs focus and has diverted essential funds from CPU-design, process and fab-development and burdened the company with a crippling debt-load.

4. The acquisition of ATi was finally consummated by stockholder vote *well after* mass shipments of the Intel Core2 family, to the tune of rave reviews by actual customers... and when AMD found themselves suddenly looking down the lion's throat. AMD could have presented a very strong case indeed for backing out of the deal.

How is AMD going to finance both bleeding-edge CPU and bleeding-edge GPU development simultaneously in their current desperate financial state, let alone the mid-range products? Both Intel and nVidia are determined to crush out any hope of AMD/ATi charging premium prices for brand-new product, thus shutting off the usual sources of development-cost recovery.

AMD should promptly put ATi up for sale when the R600 series is finally released. The performance of this series might be good enough to leverage some idiot investors into offering to pick up ATi at a very good price and let AMD get back to their true knitting.

The idea behind the ATi acquisition was good, the timing and the price offered were all wrong. AMD should have totally concentrated on their CPU knitting for at least another year, focussed entirely on shipping valid alternates to Core2 as soon as possible, plus continuing to increase their fab-capacity and really pushing development of alternates to Intel's 45nm process.




By Viditor on 4/24/2007 11:45:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
1. Overpaid 20% for ATi (per market capitalization at the time of the offer)

Which is actually a good deal as most corporate takeovers incur at least that much of a premium for control of a company...
quote:
2. ATi has carried their chronic new-product late-delivery problems with them

Again, this is a result of reshuffling people and changing management. The takeover is only a half year old... Most positive results from these kind of deals take at least 2 years to come to fruition.
quote:
The acquisition of ATi has diluted AMDs focus and has diverted essential funds from CPU-design, process and fab-development and burdened the company with a crippling debt-load

As announced today, most of that debt has just been restructured (something Bob Rivet is considered to be one of the all-time masters at), and AMD now will have cash in the $Billions for some time...without diluting the shares.
http://tinyurl.com/2qepy8
quote:
4. The acquisition of ATi was finally consummated by stockholder vote *well after* mass shipments of the Intel Core2 family

I beleive that the results of C2D actually clinched the deal...
1. There was nothing that AMD could do in the short term about C2D, but they discovered (assumption) that K10 alone will put AMD back in front until Nehalem.
2. Remember that the Fusion products were never meant to compete with C2D, they are timed to compete with Nehalem. The semiconductor industry by necessity has to have a very long term outlook because of the time it takes to develop a chip. Having a "cash crunch" for a couple of quarters is easily an acceptable price to pay for long term viability.


By Davelo on 4/26/2007 12:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
You are spot with you analysis. Unfortunately it's the nature of AMD. They never were any good at business decisions. No matter how good their engineers were, they always found a way to lose money.


By Viditor on 4/26/2007 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately it's the nature of AMD. They never were any good at business decisions. No matter how good their engineers were, they always found a way to lose money

To be fair to them, you have to remember that they filed that anti-trust suit for a very good reason...every time they began to gain traction in a market, Intel used their market position to cut their legs out.
But they have made some very good (albeit scary) decisions over the years.
For example, they bet the entire company when they built Fab 30. It turned out to be a brilliant decision, even though the debt level was horrendous for a couple of years.


I am confused
By just4U on 4/24/2007 10:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Amd pretty much had a strangle hold in the performance sector and overall their prices were quite competitive with the P4. So ... Why were they not selling cpu's hand over fist and never able to keep cpu's in stock.. but as soon as Intel has the c2d suddenly it steals back the very modest gains made by Amd in the past year. I mean the P4 was total crap compared to the 64 in all areas including "heat" which was a prime motivator for many to shy away from the original Athlon and go with intel for business based machines.

Seems to me there is more to it all then meets the eye... or the same rule would have applied over the P4 era and Intel seeing a huge decline in overall sales.

All that being said .. I think the decline could in this quarter could be partially atributed to the vista release and the consumer looking for the biggest bang. Computers have come down alot in price and those that buy new these days might see the higher end systems as more of a bargain, hense going with Intel as it holds the performance crown.. yes/no?




RE: I am confused
By EarthsDM on 4/24/2007 11:06:27 PM , Rating: 3
AMD was unable to produce enough chips to fill all of its orders when the X2 was new. C2D came out before AMD could expand/upgrade to 65 nm fabs and crank out its X2s.


RE: I am confused
By SexyK on 4/25/2007 1:00:48 AM , Rating: 3
It is much, much harder for a no-name company such as AMD (let's face it, to most consumers AMD is a no-name company) to take away marketshare from an established company whose name (and jingle) is known in almost every household in America than it is for an established company to take back marketshare from a no-name company.


AMD X2 real world usage efficiency not marketed.
By AQFP on 4/24/2007 9:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Analysts for JP Morgan reported that "Intel's superior products and aggressive pricing took their toll on AMD. We expect AMD to lose additional share during (the second quarter)."


It is a testament to Intel marketing and the influence of reviewers interested mainly in overclocking potential and performance benchmarks not typical of real-world usage that the Intel Core Micro-Architecture has succeeded so well. They have driven home the point that the high-end Intel Core 2 Duo processors are far superior when under heavy load.

The story is quite different for computers not often operated above idle but powered up much of the time. That is because the current AMD X2 lineup at idle and low loads is up to ~30% more efficient than equivalent performing Core 2 Duo processors in the typical office environment where the vast majority of computers are doing clerical or executive duties. That efficiency can add up to a significant dollar savings in energy costs for large businesses. Credit for that capability largely goes to AMD CoolnQuiet Technology.

It is unfortunate that AMD did not better market such efficiency for clerical fleet sales to business and government last year; they might not have had such a market share loss in Q1 2007.




RE: AMD X2 real world usage efficiency not marketed.
By suryad on 4/24/2007 11:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
May I have some of what you are smoking? Real world scenarios? Games are not real world scenarios? An what is that logic you got there...at low loads the X2 is 30% more efficient with respect to what? Doesnt it stand that if something is 30% more efficient at low loads that trend should carry for high loads as well?


By AQFP on 4/25/2007 12:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
Sure. I'll pass one around. You do remember shotguns, don't you? ;)

Seriously, the power consumption of an Athlon 64 X2 series processor at idle and very low loads is less than that of the current Core 2 Duo. That has been known for some time but it has never been important to enthusiasts or others susceptible to Intel marketing and the raves of most reviewers. All that matters is high frame rates, image rendering performance, overclockability, and efficiency at high loads (which is an important goal). Those items are not the typical tasks of the overwhelming majority of computers.

Read the review at the following for a detailed comparison and if you like, skip to the last two pages for the conclusion:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article735-page1.htm...


By AQFP on 4/25/2007 12:29:59 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry about the dual posts. I was trying to add one word to my reply and it was duplicated. I thought comments here could be edited. I guess not.


Well...
By Aprime on 4/24/2007 8:21:43 PM , Rating: 1
At least they have ATI. :V




RE: Well...
By Oregonian2 on 4/24/2007 8:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't their sales plummet upon acquisition? Certainly their sales to Intel probably dropped a bit. :-)


Financial engineering.....
By crystal clear on 4/25/2007 1:01:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The company posted a $611 million USD net loss in Q1 2007 and announced that it would restructure its business to cut costs.


A suitable response comes from a D.T. commentator quoted
below-

quote:
Maybe from now on AMD will specialize in financial engineering, rather than electrical engineering



By ybee




Slow to produce product
By Chadder007 on 4/24/2007 8:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
AMD has been slow to produce updates to the CPU line and also slow to update their new ATI card lineup. They are behind in both sectors now. I wish they would quit stalling with the freaking photos of the K10 CPU and just come out with it.




AMD Graphics
By Belard on 4/25/2007 1:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
About the ATI Merger...

While Nvidia may have their awsome DX10 GF8800GTS/GTX cards - before Vista, and still no drivers or games to make use of such features. The already so-so reviews of the GF8600 series is a great place for ATI/AMD to attack.

I was looking at the 8600 for myself or friends or clients - but now that its out, the 7900 or ATI cards are the ones to get.

If the AMD 2x00 cards kick Nvidia in balls, it will change things... and be profitable for AMD both in profit and respect.

Remember, when the GF-5 Series (okay "FX") came out, it was junk... too hot, too noisy - the GF4 Ti cards easily murdered the lower end GF 5200~5600 cards. The ATI 9700 came out at the right time.

Timing is everything in the tech world.




AMD is circling the drain
By Ben on 4/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: AMD is circling the drain
By deeznuts on 4/25/2007 1:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
Circling the Drain ...

AMD is doing the Coriolis!

(I know the coriolis is too weak to effect a small body of water in the sink/tub)


Puleez
By DigitalFreak on 4/25/2007 10:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to buy what is the best value for the money, whether it's AMD or Intel. If AMD can't produce a processor that does that, then Intel gets my business, or vice versa.

BTW, if AMD tanks it's because they spent way too much money buying ATI and have let Intel run roughshod over them since the C2D was introduced.




By Narutoyasha76 on 4/25/2007 11:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
#1: Is AMD native quad-core be AM2 socket compatible?

#2: I don't care if a company has higher market share I still buy what I like. Stop listening to the number Ad Games.

#3: Quit yapping and concentrate on professional studies to better compete in this world.




By Computermonger on 4/26/2007 12:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that IBM could benefit from AMD as IBM has microarchitectures and Fabs of there own. By buying AMD they could expand there chip making capabilities. IBM has the R&D in the same market and the revenue to compete against Intel.

Looking at the Intel roadmaps and future plans, microarchitectures seem to be moving to many cores and specialized hardware. The Cell processor is one such specialized hardware and could get competition from Intel in the future. Intel would undoubtedly win.

By buying (or merging with) AMD, IBM will secure itself in a market that is quickly heading in IBM's direction.

A few things left out: financial aspects of such a deal, amount of technological sharing between companies.

(Its far fetched, but Id like to hear thoughts, criticism, etc..)




listen
By AntDX316 on 4/26/2007 5:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
if you buy AMD and u know the difference between AMD and intel ur basically just giving to charity




What I don't get
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/26/2007 10:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
I just bought a few AMD mobo/cpu/ram combos for $290, and I'm really impressed so far.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

This is a 2.4GHz 65W CPU and 2GB of RAM. I challenge anyone to find any Intel combo that even comes close to this for under $300. (And I want a motherboard with reviews that dont scare me!)

People talk about overclocking, but that's just pure stupidity talking. I'll overclock my own system, but I'm not getting a call at 10pm on a sunday night two months down the road because someone's system is acting "funny".




AMD is desperate.
By crystal clear on 4/25/2007 9:18:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe from now on AMD will specialize in financial engineering, rather than electrical engineering

(by YBEE)

Here is the recipe for disaster to come-

April 24, 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Prices $2 Billion of 6.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2015

April 23, 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. to Offer $1.8 Billion of Convertible Senior Notes

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo...

JUST how are they going to pay back this debt at a time
when the financial outlook of AMD for 07 is BAD.
What if Barcelona/R600 does NOT live up to the expectations?

Hey AMD desperate !




There's no doubt Intel is going to CRUSH Nvidia..
By Sharky974 on 4/25/07, Rating: -1
By Davelo on 4/26/2007 12:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, that's a laugh. Intel won't crush Nvidia. They may buy Nvidia. Nvidia has one thing Intel never had. The ability to make good graphics chips. How this market got so screwed up. It should have been AMD/Nvidia and Intel/ATI. If AMD wanted GPUs they should have bought NVDA back in 2003.


By darkpaw on 4/27/2007 5:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
That would be asuming Intel even wants good graphics chips. They really don't need them. All Intel needs is the cheapest crap they can make that they can claim is compliant with current standards (dx9/10 or whatever).

There is more profit in selling tens of millions of garbage GPUs then selling a few million high quality GPUs. Intel doesn't need to have good graphics to make a ton of money in that market, they just need to sell the most to the OEMs that produce the vast majority of systems used by your average clueless consumer.


AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By ScythedBlade on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By SacredFist on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By EarthsDM on 4/24/2007 11:08:02 PM , Rating: 5
You're linking to a site called Fudzilla? Do I even have to say more?


RE: AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By ScythedBlade on 4/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By wien on 4/25/2007 9:37:44 AM , Rating: 1
Which doesn't really speak any more in your favor.


RE: AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By StarOrbiter on 4/25/2007 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
It does actually. Although, I would blame fudo for making it "Fud" XD ... quite a bad name ... as if Intel was supposed to be "more noise" since Moore and Noyce created the company ... "Moore - Noyce" ... see?


RE: AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By StarOrbiter on 4/25/2007 4:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
You have my gratitude, ScythedBlade. Bold enough to post links to benchmarks and engineering samples ... However, I might advise you that you stay on these frontpages less, for people vote you down not because of resources, but to stuff pertaining to the main article.

In other words, while your link is the most important thing about AMD Barcelona's that the whole web has, anandtech itself has not been able to obtain an engineering sample, and thus, you should post the link only when anand announces anything related to Barcelona.


RE: AMD Barcelona is Coming~
By Viditor on 4/26/2007 12:42:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
anandtech itself has not been able to obtain an engineering sample

Actually, that may not be true...
While I don't know if they have or not, I imagine that if AT has obtained an ES they are under a very heavy NDA and could not tell us about it.
I do know for a fact that there are ES chips out there...


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














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