backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by Calin.. on Mar 20 at 6:19 AM

AMD's revenue jumps 91.6% for 2006, Intel witnesses a 11.1% decline

The latest numbers for the semiconductor industry are in for 2006 and AMD was a company on the move according to the latest figures from iSuppli. AMD witnessed a sharp increase in revenue thanks to its acquisition of ATI Technologies and its booming chips sales.

AMD's revenue for 2006 was $7.5 billion USD compared to $3.9 billion USD for the previous year. Total revenue for the top 25 players in the semiconductor industry was up 9.3% in 2006 to $260 billion USD.

"For AMD, 2006 was the best of times as it achieved a whopping 91.6 per cent increase in revenue for the year, partly due to a major acquisition, but also because of strong gains in microprocessor market share," said iSuppli VP Dale Ford

While AMD saw large gains, Intel saw an 11.1% decrease in revenue for 2006 compared to 2005. Revenue was reported at $31.5 billion USD for 2006 as opposed to $35.5 billion USD for 2005. Intel's performance, however, was still enough to keep it in first place by a large margin over second place Samsung Electronics.

"2006 was the worst of times for Intel," continued Ford. "The revenue decline, due to Intel's bleak performance in its core PC microprocessor and Flash memory businesses, erased nearly all the company's sales gains from its strong year in 2005.”

Other strong performance during 2006 included South Korea-based Hynix and Japan's Elpida. Hynix saw it 2006 revenue jump 41.5% to $7.8 billion which also bumped its ranking from 11th place to 7th place. Elpida posted a remarkable 98.6% gain to $3.5 billion as it climbed from 28th place to 19th place.



Comments     Threshold


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

OMg Intel is going down!
By Regs on 3/16/2007 12:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
They're doomed! They don't stand a chance!

What will they doooo?




RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By noxipoo on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Crank the Planet on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 12:48:46 PM , Rating: 1
Well, Intel's also one to two years ahead of AMD in production process technology as well.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 12:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "AMD's engineers are coming up with actual design changes that benefit the proc..."

Such as? Is this hard information speaking...or just wishful thinking?


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Crank the Planet on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By MrDiSante on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Locutus465 on 3/16/2007 10:28:30 PM , Rating: 1
yeah... except for AMD this is a minor tweak compared to what Intel did to get here... If you read closely barcelona also isn't terribly different from what current generation Athlon64's are.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By zsdersw on 3/17/2007 8:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? Core 2 Duo is a "minor tweak" of an existing design as well.

Remember.. Core 2 Duo wasn't developed in a vacuum, all by itself. Intel had Dothan/Yonah to start with as the basis.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By MrDiSante on 3/16/2007 1:08:51 PM , Rating: 5
So... let me get this straight. Aside from the fiasco widely known as Netburst which gave AMD 4 years of architectural superiority, Intel has for the past 20 years always had the technological and architectural edge. Having realized that they screwed up, they fix their mistakes and release an architecture that makes K8 seem like Netburst. They have further cut down on the useless bureaucracy and are releasing new mini-architectures on a regular basis. Do you feel like explaining exactly how Intel is going down? Neither of the two players are going down, though by the looks of it AMD is going to lose market share and bleed money due to Intel's aggressive pricing and new architecture. Aside from that nothing is going to change.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By ElJefe69 on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By KaiserCSS on 3/16/2007 7:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, DT needs a more effective application process to stop underage miscreants.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By ElJefe69 on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By ZmaxDP on 3/19/2007 1:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to break it to you, the only person you "owned" was yourself. The fact that you're 32 isn't a justification for your bad behavior. Act your age, not your shoe size.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By ZmaxDP on 3/19/2007 1:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
And another thing,

Normally I like to correct people who try to use discriminatory slang to describe things they think of negatively.

However, in this case, it would appear that you're associating homosexuals with a decent vocabulary. I don't really have a problem with that. In general, when you do something like this you're trying to insinuate that said group of people lack certain "qualities" that you yourself posses. In this case, I don't think you could have given a nicer compliment...


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By dm0r on 3/16/2007 11:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
This was the most useless post ive ever seen.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2007 3:30:29 PM , Rating: 1
Uh...no. Intel might have had a f*** up with Netburst but their designs are hardly un-innovative. I love it how you say the Core architecture is the exception. So you think Core was one last good idea by Intel and after this their products will suck?

Stop being such a fanboy for AMD. I love AMD too but just admit that Intel handed them their ass the same as AMD did to Intel. Both companies got lazy and complacent. Intel first. Then AMD.

Yes AMD will make a comeback with K8L quad cores but it remains to be seen if its enough. They had the edge when they were the first to a true dual core that stomped all over Intel. The race will be much closer this time unless AMD pulls some rabbit out of its hat with the performance of K8L. And with that closer race its going to come down to price, heat, and power consumption. Something Intel has down quite well at the moment. AMD can't compete with Intel on price and manufacturing capacity. Intel knows it and is going to rob AMD of its chance to make some financial gains by releasing cheap quad cores.

Sure, Barcelona might be a true quad core. But if the performance is the same or close and the Intel is cheaper, thats what the majority of people are going to buy. I prefer AMD, but I'm running Intel because I buy a CPU for performance, not the name.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Spartan Niner on 3/16/2007 12:31:53 PM , Rating: 4
*taps sarcasm meter*

Even if AMD's revenue has gone up, their cash on hand is severely restricted with the acquisition of ATI. While it was a smart long-term move, in the short term it could lead to some solvency issues and will be hurting AMD for a while.

Intel won't be hurting anytime soon - their fab capacities are several times AMD's AND they have the current *best* CPU architecture - Core. Only time will tell how AMD's Barcelona response will play out.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By giantpandaman2 on 3/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 12:59:24 PM , Rating: 4
> "Intel's [strategy] is twofold...

Actually, its threefold. The third prong is to not squeeze AMD so hard they actually fold. Intel could certainly force AMD entirely out of the market, but doing so would mean only a small increase in revenue, and a very large increase in regulatory and antitrust hassles.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By giantpandaman2 on 3/16/2007 1:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not too sure about that, simply because AMD holds way too much marketshare for Intel to pull a MS/Apple on them. AMD is a much, much bigger opponent for Intel than Apple was to MS when MS bailed them out years ago.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 1:06:41 PM , Rating: 1
A 15% market share is nothing compared to Intel's clout. Intel has higher margins and piles of cash. If it wanted to, it could easily afford to sell processors at manufacturing cost for 2-3 years. But driving AMD to bankruptcy buys them nothing. They want a competitor...they just want one small enough to not hurt them. Driving AMD below a 10% market share isn't in Intel's best interests.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Xavian on 3/16/2007 1:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
I believe AMD hit 25% marketshare last year and is holding steady.

25% is hefty amount and thus AMD is now too big to push down into the smaller company it was before.

Intel let the genie out of the bottle (AMD) with Netburst, now they are struggling desperately to shove it back in, before it does too much damage.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 1:40:05 PM , Rating: 4
> "I believe AMD hit 25% marketshare last year and is holding steady"

Actually, I believe AMD's CPU marketshare was 16.1% in 2006. It's likely they'll lose share in 2007.

But market share doesn't tell the whole story, by a long shot. AMD's share of the profits in the marketplace is essentially zero, as they continually lose money. Intel is vastly profitable and sitting on billions in cash. AMD is heavily in debt, and could easily be tipped into bankruptcy, even if they had twice the market share they do now.

But again, forcing AMD out of the market would NOT be Intel's best interests.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Spoelie on 3/16/2007 7:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
AMD nibbled way too much on intel's cash cow, the server market, and that is a big part of the profits. Nothing zero at all. The opteron was what made intel panic, not the athlon64. And as long as AMD has a foothold in the server market, intel won't be pushing anyone anywhere.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Calin on 3/20/2007 6:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
However, Intel was and is big into laptop market - its Pentium M ran unchecked, even while on desktop and server AMD was head and shoulders over Intel.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By peternelson on 3/17/2007 1:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Comparison of marketshare is difficult.

Are we talking shipped processors, shipped graphics processors or the revenue associated with these. Not to mention chipsets and other products like flash.

Then are we talking USA figures or worldwide? Are we talking retail or OEM?

People can spin the percentages to interpret what they want.

Intel now has a good CPU with Core TWO Duo (First "Core" for laptops couldn't do 64 bit and was slower).

Unfortunately it is still ramping up volumes and most chips sold in the last year were still Netburst.

Intel is pressing ahead with process shrinks.

On the other hand AMD made a significant achievement in getting entry to the OEM channel in the form of Dell (and others) which will help volumes and brand awareness if not margins.

The forthcoming improvements ie Barcelona should at least close the small gap between their current and Intel performance.

Of course they will have to keep going because of Intel shrinks so need to migrate to next version of hypertransport (as per roadmap) to leverage their architecture advantage into performance.

There may also be some synergies of AMD with ATI operations eg bulk buying the outsource of manuf to TSMC, cheaper materials, hybrid products, more design team....

I'd say both companies have a good future and would buy products from either, depending on needs.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Viditor on 3/17/2007 10:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD's share of the profits in the marketplace is essentially zero, as they continually lose money

This is quite incorrect...
Just because the company as a whole lost money in Q4 doesn't say a thing about their share of the profits...

1. AMD made a nice profit in Q1,2,3 of 06, and in fact their Gross Margins were much better than Intel's for all 3 of those quarters.
2. The company losing money in Q4 is more of a statement about how much they spent on Capex, Acquisitions (ATI), Taxes, salary payoffs to departing ATI employees, etc...
AMD's revenue share is the way to guage their share of the profits, and this stayed fairly level.

quote:
Intel is vastly profitable and sitting on billions in cash

Intel needs billions in cash to do business...
As to profitability, they went from $8.6 Billion in 2005 to $5.0 Billion in 2006...a drop of 41% in profit over a 1 year period.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Viditor on 3/17/2007 11:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel has higher margins and piles of cash

For most of last year, Intel had lower margins than AMD.

quote:
If it wanted to, it could easily afford to sell processors at manufacturing cost for 2-3 years

But of course then they would probably have a summary injunction for anti-trust placed on them if they did so.

Nor could they actually do that...for example, their non-COGS (cost of goods sold) expenses for last year was ~$12.5 Billion. If they sold at cost, they would lose that much each year. Considering they only have ~$7 Billion in cash, they would be broke in 6 months...


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By semo on 3/16/2007 1:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
i think you'll find intel found themselves in a pickle (not so long ago) because they rested way too long on netburst. of course they could afford to work on totally separate architecture (banias) at the same time intel's marketing department was busy crippling (improving?) netburst (ghz ghz ghz!!!).


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 1:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "i think you'll find intel found themselves in a pickle ..."

An incredibly profitable pickle. Even at the bottom of the Netburst chasm, Intel cpus were generating several times the daily profts that AMD's were. Intel merely misjudged the timing a bit, and allowed AMD to get a little more market share than they wanted them to have.


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By semo on 3/16/2007 1:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel won't be hurting anytime soon - their fab capacities are several times AMD's AND they have the current *best* CPU architecture - Core
ahem... surely you mean core 2


RE: OMg Intel is going down!
By Zandros on 3/16/2007 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, he does not. The processors sold under the Core 2 brand use the Core microarchitecture. The processors sold under the Core brand use what is commonly called the P6+ microarchitecture.


Doesn't matter
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/16/2007 12:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what would happen if you subtracted the debt incurred with loans and whatnot when they purchased ATI.

I highly suspect these numbers are inflated because they dont take into account debt incurred. Also, AMD absorbed an entire company so its no surprise their revenue almost doubled, its 2 companies put together. Someone add AMD's 2005 and ATI's 2005 numbers together and what do we get?




RE: Doesn't matter
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/16/2007 12:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind I found what I wanted.

quote:
AMD's PC microprocessor revenue rose by 35.5% in 2006 and its market share in that product segment increased to 16.1%, up 5 percentage points from 11.1% in 2005.


Thats what it really increased by. The other 56.1% is the acquistion of ATI. So the number is inflated.


RE: Doesn't matter
By Crank the Planet on 3/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't matter
By cochy on 3/16/2007 2:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How then do you account for the deep price cuts Intel just made and the cuts they will make again in a few months?


Intel is slashing prices so much cause they smell blood and are going in for the kill. AMD may have severely overstretched themselves by acquiring ATI at this time. I don't think they are in a very good financial situation at the moment.

According to AMD's income statement they had revenues of $5.6 billion and actually had a net loss for the year of 2006 of $166 million, compared to the previous year net income of $165 million.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMD&annual

I don't know where this analyst is getting his info.


RE: Doesn't matter
By Crank the Planet on 3/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't matter
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/16/2007 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
Uhm yea......

So anyway back to logical objective statements ok?

Let's discard the fanboism while were at it and get down to the meat and potatoes.

AMD's outlook.
-AMD acquired ATI.
-AMD Is working on "Fusion" which aims to integrate GPU and CPU processor cores into one chip.
-AMD is releasing a quad core CPU using a unified architecture in the next few months.
-AMD is hoping to reach the 45nm process by Q4'08.

Anything else is speculation.

Now for Intel's outlook.
-Intel is cutting prices to unload the surplus of 65nm Core 2 and Xeon chips currently in the market.
-Intel will be releasing server, and desktop chips in Q4'07 on the 45nm process, which will provide a decrease in production cost per chip (More per wafer), an increase in clock speeds, and an increase in L2 Cache.
-Intel plans to release CSI by 2H'08, replacing the legacy FSB.
-Intel is also set to roll out a new chip architecture in 2H'08 following the mass production of the Core 2 and Xeon processors on 45nm Process.
-Intel will release new Itanium2 chips 1Q'08 on 45nm Process.

Now heres the breakdown.
-AMD Just started releasing chips on the 65nm Process in 1Q'07.

-Intel cut prices and is releasing a Core 2 and Xeon refresh with cheap dual and quad cores.
-AMD to release a quad core chip with a unified architecture.
(Both same time frame)

-Intel set to roll out 45nm Dual and Quad core chips Q4'07.
-AMD should be releasing desktop versions of the quad core chip about this same timeframe.

-Intel releases rest of chip lineup on 45nm Q1'08.

-Intel set to release new chip microarchitecture with unified quad core, and who knows what else 2H'08.

Right so I made it easy for you and put the key punches in bold. The bolded events are ones to watch as they will likely cause the greatest ripples in the pond.

Frankly, as much as AMD's Barcelona will stop them from sliding, its not going to do much to give them traction. And Intel's chip is cheaper to produce. They are quite literally gluing 2 Core 2's onto the same chip. Making it easier for Intel to mass produce 1 type of core and build Dual or Quad core chips with it no problem. Yes, there might be an advantage with AMD's chip, but Intel can produce them cheaper and offer that savings to the consumer.

I'm not sure which field you work in but dollars count, and maintaining an upgrade path counts, both of which Intel wins with right now. We can also see Intel's roadmap, and from a corporate perspective we like that, since we know what options will be there in the future, with AMD we have no clue, and we need to bet on a sure thing, not gamble. We go out and say we want 4 new servers, with 2 processors in each and were going to have them run XYZ database or network service. So we go out and buy them. With Intel we know whats in them, and we know that we have a couple of options coming out in the next 2 years to upgrade these servers with instead of buying new ones. (Servers aren't cheap) If we go the AMD route, we know what were getting, but we don't know what kind of upgrade route we get, AMD isn't saying anything and that concerns us as we can not bet on an upgrade path in 1-2 years and might have to purchase new servers instead of upgrading our existing hardware. That kind of gamble does not sit well for management, and frankly not well with our IT staff as integrating new servers is never a cake walk, theres always some pain to be had setting them up and getting them linked into the infrastructure.

I would also like to point out that Fusion has 0 read me here ZERO benefit to us corporate customers (And we account for more than 50% of the PC Sales in the industry). We don't give a flying that there is a local GPU on board, if its cheaper to have an AMD box than an Intel box, so be it, but right now Intel just glues an IGP onto the board near the processor and gets the same result. Performance in the graphical arena is pointless, if we want graphics power were going to go buy ourselves a PCI-E or AGP card to do it and slap it in as an "Option" and issue IGP's standard to keep costs down, because I will bet you that a Fusion processor will cost more than a CPU and IGP.

That work well enough for ya? You are focusing on raw performance from an enthusiast perspective, which is pointless. Do we always need top performance? Nope. If the cheap stuff is Good enough, then thats what we will buy. The other thing you need to consider is that our systems have been designed around and tweaked to Intel chips, Chipsets, and Controllers. To switch to AMD Chips, ATI Chipsets (or nVidia) and god knows whos controllers, this could cause problems in our infrastructure and is typically not something we want to deal with. If we can stick with Intel because "It just works" and we know it will, then we will deploy it, because its less headache.

I will end my statement there, I think I've brought about a larger picture of the issue for you.


RE: Doesn't matter
By Maharajamd on 3/16/2007 3:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Good lord. I would much rather read what you have to say then dailytech. Change your occupation.

AMD won't go bankrupt.
AMD won't lose market share.
AMD will take revenue/profit loses.
AMD will come back. Tech is up, and down.

INTEL isn't trying to "Go for the kill".
INTEL needs a competitor... but a leash is nice.
INTEL is winning on every "front".

To me, the Fusion idea is good, but that is too far away for it to be good enough / cheap enough, for me to buy a all-in-one chip.

What was said earlier is a valid point. Our world grows technically EVERYDAY. A home isn't comprised of a desktop computer and a crt tv. Everyone has a laptop, a cellphone, mom and dad have pdas, digital tvs, portable gaming devices, consoles, dekstops, hell even home media center / servers. At home I have 3 desktops, 3 laptops, 3 consoles, a NAS, and a plasma. CPUs and GPUs are going to be integrated into our cars, homes, LIVES. So you have to take into consideration that the market grows, expands, adds new niches every day.


RE: Doesn't matter
By herrdoktor330 on 3/16/2007 10:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
Master Kenobi, you should publish articles like this to major media outlets. I'm sure you could get paid for that kind of analysis.

I've been an AMD user for years and I love their products. But as of right now, if you're looking for extreme performance on about any benchmark, you're looking for a Core2 processor. Intel isn't going anywhere. They have lots of money from years and years of being the recommended processor to go into all PCs made from year 1995 to the now. Remember "Intel Inside", anyone? They are getting ready to lay down the penryn line which is going to be a unified quad core at the 45nm process.

AMD had a good run. Ever since the Athlon, they've been spearing Intel into a performance war. Both companies have been going neck and neck for a while. But once AMD claimed dominance with the Athlon64 design, they failed to innovate and plan for the future. They SHOULD have been releasing Barcelona last year to compete with Core2. While I think the purchase of ATI was a good investment for the future, they're really going to have to do some R&D and investment in shrinking their manufacturing process to compete.

Now... I'd like to shift focus in my post for a moment to the Intel vs AMD war to the nVidia vs ATI war. Now that AMD has their foot in the video card game, I'm sure they can use some of their cpu designs to make some quite potent gpu designs. I don't really see "Fusion" becoming something viable for a while... But they could really rock the video card game. I was reading an old Maximum PC which was showing old 3dfx technology. They had a review of the Voodoo 5 "Napalm", which was so power intensive it needed it's own source of power outside the PS of the PC itself. Maybe AMD/ATI could just slap a worked-over X2 processor as the gpu on the card, run an exterior power source to it, and call it a day.

But then again, that's my opinion.


RE: Doesn't matter
By crystal clear on 3/17/2007 3:46:50 AM , Rating: 1
Your comment-
I would also like to point out that Fusion has 0 read me here ZERO benefit to us corporate customers (And we account for more than 50% of the PC Sales in the industry). We don't give a flying that there is a local GPU on board, if its cheaper to have an AMD box than an Intel box, so be it,

My response-Read this...

AMD's 'Fusion' processors, due to ship around two years from now, will initially target mobile machines as the chip maker pitches the product's superior performance-per-Watt characteristics, it revealed this week.

Speaking at a chip design conference, AMD's Chief Platform Architect, Steve Polzin, said of Fusion: "Our plan is to focus on mobile to deliver significant increases in performance per Watt. We will start in mobile and hopefully integrate upwards."

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/30/amd_fusion...

Unquote-
*This should clear anything (ideas) you have about Fusion.

*AMD's plans for ATI are predicate on its view that" GPU technology will eventually be incorporated into the CPU as ONE CORE AMONG MANY".Note this & its implications-think !!
From 2 cores & 4 cores you jump to 8 cores & more!!!
(look at this as a long term soulution )

* According to Hester, Fusion's roots lie much further back than discussions between AMD and ATI about graphics technology more tightly connected to the CPU, let alone the more recent takeover negotiations. When 'Hammer', AMD's original 64-bit x86 architecture, was in development, AMD designed the single-core chip to be able to be equipped with a second core as and when the market and new fabrication technologies made that possible. Going quad-core will require a suitably re-tailored architecture, as will moving up to eight cores and beyond to... well, who can say how many processing cores CPUs will need in the future?

Or, for that matter, what kind of cores?http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10/26/the_story_...

*Intel has its eye on the same target, and recent revelations that it is indeed establishing a graphics chip division suggests it's considering a similar path to reach it.

*So AMD is right on target & has the lead in R&D time line.

Your comment-
"To switch to AMD Chips, ATI Chipsets (or nVidia) and god knows whos controllers, this could cause problems in our infrastructure and is...."

My response-
Quote-
AMD ATI chipset development continues for Intel platforms

Jochen Polster, sales and marketing vice president for AMD, said their goal is to have a reasonable share of the Intel chipset market -- nothing too large. Relationships with NVIDIA will continue as well.

“We believe in a open platform so our business partners can build and develop products that build on their strengths.”

Source-Daily tech-1st march 07

To summarize it-AMD values its SERVER market & is well aware
of all the issues you raise about -"problems in our infrastructure "

Your comment-
"They are quite literally gluing 2 Core 2's onto the same chip. Making it easier for Intel to mass produce 1 type of core and build Dual or Quad core chips with it no problem. Yes, there might be an advantage with AMD's chip, but Intel can produce them cheaper and offer that savings to the consumer"

my response-

The Intel trick(originating from Israel)-works in a short term stratergy,but on a long term its short lived.
AMD did more long term statergic planning-it went back to the basics & to the drawing board.It sacrifised the short term gains for some real lasting longtime GAINS.

Your comment-
Do we always need top performance? Nope. If the cheap stuff is Good enough, then thats what we will buy.

My response-

Whats good for your company not necessarily is good for all-
Not all think in this way-No point being "PENNY WISE POUND FOOLISH"
YOU THINK LONGTERM & not "Good enough"
Your theory is good for HOME SERVERS.

OK got to go,will be back on this more!!!!!!!!


RE: Doesn't matter
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/19/2007 8:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD ATI chipset development continues for Intel platforms

You missed the point, most servers use Intel chipsets, not ATI or nVidia. This is because Intel offers us a complete and stable platform, and when there is a problem we know exactly who to call. The OEM and Intel. Some companies have switched to Operton based lineups, but Intel still holds the lions share of that sector, and will because migrating from an Intel platform to an AMD platform is not as simple as just switching the box out. Anyone that deploys and manages servers will tell you its a nightmare to change platforms, and not just for technical reasons.

quote:
Whats good for your company not necessarily is good for all-

For servers, most companies will buy as much horsepower as they can without going over budget. But with regular end user laptops and desktops, there is no such need. Most end users will get a generic desktop/laptop around 1000-1500 in rough cost, some companies are moving in the direction of thin clients in which case you can get those suckers for around 600 bux each and just offload the storage and processing to the server clusters. Thus, as you can see we call this a cost/benefit analysis and companies practically live by them.

quote:
*This should clear anything (ideas) you have about Fusion.

No, its about as clear as mud. Until we start seeing something tangible and/or better technical documentation as to how they are implementing this "Fusion" product, we will assume nothing. Not to rain on your parade here but "Fusion" isn't even off the drawing board at this point and it would be reckless to assume otherwise. Barcelona is in testing and should be out in a few months, as is Intel's Penryn lineup and C2D Refresh.

In all fairness, "Fusion" is comparable to Intel's "CSI" as we know little about it, both are still unknown players and it is unrealistic to expect this will work out. We know CSI from Intel is a replacement for the old BUS, and should be something more along the lines of HyperTransport. Other than that we know little. For "Fusion" we know nothing, we know that it vaguely involves putting a GPU Core integrated into the CPU die. How that will happen, how they will get their process to handle it (They will need to be on 45nm to have enough space due to the transistor count of GPU's) They will also need to effectively allocate memory to the Fusion "GPU" Core or risk bottlenecking the GPU and GPU. This will require a top down redesign of the On-Die Memory Controller. So, forgive me for being extremely skeptical about AMD's "Fusion" theory. It sounds nice, and they have some slick little powerpoint slides that lay it out for you, but the reality is they aren't very far along with it, and still need to work out a few problems that are likely to slowdown or even halt the "Fusion" project until they can be worked around.

Intel is in the same boat with whatever their answer to "Fusion" is. However you need to remember that Intel has more graphics experience than AMD. Yes, AMD bought ATI, but its 2 different groups of people working for the first time, together. Intel has made IGP's inhouse for a decade now and know how to make a graphics chip, heck they are the leading Computer Graphics provider with over 53% marketshare. ATI has graphics experience, AMD has none, Intel has both and the teams in the Intel camp are familiar with working together, a huge plus. Intel has magnitudes more money and resources to pour into R&D on their GPU/CPU chip. I would argue Intel is further ahead than AMD in this regard as Intel has demonstrated they can drop 80 Cores on a chip that are specialized and have them work together, this demonstrates Intel knows exactly what they are doing.


RE: Doesn't matter
By Darkskypoet on 3/17/2007 1:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
First off - (a general reply to the thread)
I find it funny that a lot of people, even those that post generally intelligent pieces, and have experience in the industry miss key points, and seemingly near obvious future trends.

I truly applaud Intel's 'Athloning', the Athlon with c2d. However, it's really not that revolutionary of a chip... You make a P3 with a far smarter / efficient decode engine, and a fatter / wider set of RISC pipes, and voila a fast short pipelined chip. Kudos, and see Barcelona will be the same, with some other tricks up its sleeve.

These chips are made possible thru very very sweet production techniques. All Intel's core dev teams have done is incremental optimizations of a short piped RISC chip... Kudos, but it is manufacturing prowess and money that are their greatest assets. If both companies were still at 90nm, AMD would be far more competitive with Intel even with a c2d chip. You'd see relatively similar clock ceilings, and not the runaway over clocking Intel has granted the many of us (myself included) with any c2d. In fact I would say AMD has a far better 90nm process then what Intel had. You have to when you can't just go build a Fab out of petty cash.

C2D Wins, but don't think its because the fundamentals behind the chip are truly special, its simply a lot of money, and a lot of medium delta re-spins. Many different cores came and went as mobile processors to come out with the c2d. This time they managed to fix the last of the bottlenecks, and make a truly balanced and properly functioning chip. Remember Pentium M? Honestly a far better processor then anything Netburst gave us, however its achilles heel: High Bandwidth Media transformation / encoding. This wasn't truly fixed until the last iteration of this line: the C2D.

Next;
Fusion: The CPU world as we know it is heading for change. Yay, woot, and so forth. Intel has a kick ass general purpose CPU, with 4 cores!!! OMG. Shoot me now. AMD with the acquisition of ATI in their fusion concept can drop 2 R600 cores, and 2 Barcelona+ cores onto 1 die, and drop two of these into a much maligned Quad FX mainboard (yes, or pretty much any Dual or Quad socket Opteron mainboard as well).
Wonder why 45nm and fusion is so special for them?

Anyone see the terraflop in a box performance? Realize then we are talking roughly double that performance plus 4 cores of Barcelona+ goodness. Bring your 8 core C2Ds to the table, we'll race for pink slips.

Fusion isn't about graphics... It might be in a desktop consumer market targeting OEMs or others :). But as has been pointed out ad nauseum, it's about servers. With Servers, it's about stream processing, and specialized processors / co-processors. There is a reason AMD opened up Hyper Transport technology; more chips made for their platform, more options, more specialized blades, and clusters / nodes.

The future is not simply who has the fastest General Purpose CPU, the future is in what platform can I leverage to be most efficient with my workload? The one for which I can only drop in Intel C2D derivatives? Or the one that I can drop some stream processors, cell derivatives, encryption copros, etc. into?

I for one can't wait to see the latest server benchmarks with AMD's “Close to Metal” SDK, and a few R600 boards, or soon multicore R600 Stream processing boards. Can a 6ghz quad core C2D match that floating point monster? Anyone who remembers IO cards can attest to the evolution of boards to parts of a piece of silicone... Can't wait to get my dual quad core fusion chips. 4 Barcelona+ cores, and 4 R600+ cores in two sockets. All those folding PS3's better watch out.

Fusion is only about graphics for consoles, set top PC's, etc. Its really about creating heterogeneous cores with which to customize performance. It's not necessary for business PCs. Business PCs will have full system on a chip designs. OEMs will love this. AMD is already leading there as well CPU/NB on a chip.. add video... and come on, like an SB is hard to mold into the equation. Give me a break.
(Note: Intel created, then abandoned a system on chip years ago... but not quite the same beast we speak of here, [Timona or some such?])

All of which is so much easier with the purchase of ATI!

Now onto the difficult short term reality. AMD needs cash. Yes Fanboys, and Girls... Send your cheques to Dr. Ruiz care of... You get the picture. The delays, I bet you anything, are due to cash issues. FABs are expensive! Slow 65nm rollout; lack of cash... delayed R600; cash, and possibly frictional adjustment issues with integrating two firms of that size. AMD needs money now more then ever. However, I think Intel is praying no one buys them as an investment opportunity. Give AMD a solid financial footing, and a hands off investment group... and Intel will continue to lose market share. Furthermore, AMD will be more dangerous to them then ever.

The other side of the coin:

I notice everyone jumps on the new $266 QuadC2 promised to be at a store near you in the near future. Does anyone else but me realize that Netburst chips still make up a terrible amount of Shipped Intel CPUs? As bad as AMD's ASP is, Intel hurts there own inventory value with ever price gouge. This is why AMD is not doing as badly as it could be. I also would hazard that the coming of cheap C2Qs coincides with enough of Intel's CPU sales being Core based that completely torching the old inventory won't wound them as badly as it would today. However, with Allendale, and cheap cheap cheap C2Ds they are hurting themselves, as well as AMD.

C2Ds aggressive pricing is one of the main reasons their revenues are down. Last I checked nearly 50% of Intel's shipments were not C2Ds... So 50% is getting given away so Intel can fight a price war with AMD. Deep pockets? Yes. Happy shareholders? Maybe a stretch. AMD needs to stay in the middle of the sandwich, which they are doing, until Barcelona hits server side at the least. Then ASPs can marginally increase for AMD, whilst they fight intel on the low and mid end where OEMs buy millions of chips.

AMD still sells every chip it makes. Period.

End result: AMD will retain, if not gain market share, until Intel depletes its massive inventories of Non-C2D chips. Then the pain comes for AMD, unless Barcelona can be fast enough in certain high markup segments to boost ASPs while AMD matches Intel in the mid to low end cheap 65nm X2's made by Chartered, vs cheap 65nm C2D (and derivatives) made by Intel.

45nm..... Is the next massive advantage for Intel, but again... CPUs are not sold anywhere near cost, so undercutting the sales of 65nm C2Ds in price by trying to leverage a slight cost decrease from 45nm (per die)Penryn, will just serve to hurt their ASP even more. So 45nm will more then likely be high end. This means we have to ask hat will AMD have high end at that point? Can they leverage it to raise ASP, while still competing in the low to midrange price war?

In reality, the game is changing, and AMD has been one to move before Intel on game changing solutions. Raw manufacturing capacity has always been Intel's strong suit. C2D is not a deviation of this, C2D is a company spending billions on a design team to keep working till they got it right. It took many P-M iterations to get to C2D. Arguably something that wasn't to far out of their reach when the first P4 rolled out to the first stupid buyer who honestly thought 1300mhz P4 > 1000mhz P3...

AMD brought SIMD instructions to FP processes before Intel.
AMD Licensed Alpha EV-6 bus topology, better then Intel.
AMD brought On die MC before Intel
AMD produces and sells Stream Processing Cards, w/SDK (faster then Intel's General purpose CPUs)
AMD Went the C2D route initially (Short and wide, while Intel went Marketing with Net Burst.
AMD Adopted a more advanced Point to Point Bus topology with HT. Intel still hasn't.. (Want to count the years between Athlon MP and when Intel Finally fixes its multi cpu platform?)

I love AMD, and I appreciate a good chip or new tech from any company. I run an nVIDIA card, and thanks to 3DFX IP, nVIDIA is doing very very well! ATI can thank the ARTX team for a lot of its success too. AMD can thank Alpha, and Intel can thank gods own bank account.

Either way, the game is very soon not going to be who has the fastest general purpose CPU, it will be about: configurable, heterogeneous core processors, system(s) on a chip, and console / appliance design wins. The game is also becoming more about open standards, alliances, and interoperability. AMD has had to survive by and through many of the later mechanisms, and knows this game well. Intel Does not, its never really had to ally with anyone. It sues.

AMD today is not the K5 AMD, or even that of the K6 era. AMD has street cred, OEM cred, and corporate cred. Whomever mentioned all business buys intel, is trapped in a stupid IT department, or is recalling the glory years for Intel. The system chipset branding / platform for desktop roll outs doesn't matter a lick to a competent Sys Admin. What matters is that it works, is cheap, and that a big brand says they back it. It does, it still is, and many do. Lower TCO does not = Intel, and people don't get fired for buying AMD anymore.

Good night all.

P.S. Mentioned as a disclaimer I like AMD, so I'll also add I currently ( as I am sure many of you do ) run a C2D e6300 at over 3ghz. I also mentioned "I appreciate a good chip or new tech from any company."


RE: Doesn't matter
By crystal clear on 3/18/2007 12:19:03 AM , Rating: 1
Back to you Kenobi........
Lets get down to the meat and potatoes.

Your comment-
"we need to bet on a sure thing, not gamble. We go out and say we want 4 new servers, with 2 processors in each and were going to have them run XYZ database or network service. So we go out and buy them."

my response-

*Call an IBM rep-he will sought it for you .
You get upgrade,support,service,etc all in one package.

"Looks like your company likes to gamble, rather than bet on the sure thing,by not working with reliable comapnies like IBM."

I dont work for IBM, but do call them for my computing needs & I get the best service.

It appears to me that your IT dept is a LOW PRIORITY BUDGET ITEM in your company.

By the way -some professional tip to you-This is not the right time to upgrade-KEEP IT ON HOLD.(dont wish to disclose more than that).


RE: Doesn't matter
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/19/2007 8:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
It is typically not the best idea to listen blindly to the OEM Rep's, they lie all the time. They also talk up their products because they are salesmen, not engineers. IBM is also not the end all be all of the server market. They make some nice servers yes, and we have a bunch of them here, they all run Xeon's however. We also have a fair quantity of HP Blade Servers here as well.

I'm well aware now is not the right time to upgrade, I was posing a fictional scenario for the sake of argument.

IBM is also not reliable. Remember this thing called "Lotus"? We had that in here, That thing was the biggest piece of shit to ever grace the market. Domino server, Lotus Notes, Lotus 1-2-3, Lotus Sametime, Domino Applications, and more. I was glad to replace most of that shit, I can not stand calendaring in Notes, its never worked right since R1 period. If IBM wants to win some respect for being reliable, how about a software suite that doesnt suck, then we will talk.


RE: Doesn't matter
By cochy on 3/16/2007 2:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their graphics division will slowly begin to outpace Nvidia.


I don't know what you're on, but they seem to be very much behind Nvidia now. R600 delayed again? Everytime we hear news out of AMD/ATI these days it's delays. They are slowing down it seems. I like AMD but I think they made a mistake with ATI but only time will tell.

They are late to counter the C2D, and when they finally do Intel's deep prices cut might undo them greatly. I like AMD, always have since the 486 DX4, but they are in trouble now, in desktop space at least. Seems they still have a comfortable lead in the server space.


....
By allnighter on 3/16/2007 12:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
2 months? Dont be ridiculus!

It was 3 months I think...




RE: ....
By Acanthus on 3/16/2007 1:38:11 PM , Rating: 4
And for all of you economists in this thread, since when does revenue = profit?

1Q 2007: AMD loses more in 3 months than it profited last YEAR.

2Q 2007: AMD announces massive revenue increases from aquiring a company... That same company, their new GPU and Chipset division, is losing money, the processor division is losing money, and they now have ~$10B in outstanding debt from the purchase of ATI, previous debt, and the construction of a new fab in NY.

All it takes for AMD to tank is a pull in credit.

I am not an AMD fanboy, but you have to look at this realistically. Growth potential is what make people invest, and a late R600 and quiet Barcelona are not pointing to anything going their way technologically in the short term.

Couple that with a price war with a company that has about 20x your manufacturing capacity, and on a smaller process, thats trying to take market share back from the netburst fiasco, and you have $266 Quad Cores in the 2H 2007. (this has already been announced)

AMD is losing on ALL fronts, to say otherwise is just buying into market spin. Of course their sales go up when they aquire a massive GPU company, sales =/= profit.


RE: ....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 1:47:02 PM , Rating: 3
An excellent analysis. AMD will post a very large financial loss in 2007, and almost certainly lose market share. They might conceivably return to profitability in 2008, but I wouldn't bet on it until at least the year after that.


RE: ....
By Regs on 3/16/2007 2:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe they will lose marketshare. If anything they will gain. Though I agree they will lose profits because they simply are not getting anything new out there to price high enough. You have the K8 which product cycle ended 2-3 years ago - but the X2 was a nice little refresh that lasted 6-12 months. People are buying them still but will not cover the loss of the aqusistion and capatil they spent in 2006.

It's not the end of the world for AMD. 2006 and 2007 is and will be a growth perioed for AMD and that's the important part to remember. If they were going in the other direction (mass lay offs, site closures, limited market segments and so forth), then I would say they were in trouble. However it's been the opposite for them. They continue to grow in market segments, production facilities, and retailer channels.

End of 2007 and all of 2008 will be seeing some dramatic changes in AMD from with-in. I wouldn't be suprised to see AMD actually take a bigger chunk out of Intel once AMD and IBM begin a more aggressive campaign and partnership against Intel.


RE: ....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 2:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "I don't believe they will lose marketshare. If anything they will gain."

When you have higher-priced, lower-performing products, you don't gain market share. You lose it.

Perhaps the situation will change by Q4, but even if it does, the overall situation for 2007 will be a net share loss.


RE: ....
By maevinj on 3/16/2007 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Intel did it with they're Netburst processors


RE: ....
By zsdersw on 3/16/2007 5:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Their .


RE: ....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/17/2007 8:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "Intel did it with they're Netburst processors "

No. At the end of the Netburst life-- when they were both more expensive and worse performing-- Intel lost market share, and sharply. Which is why AMD now has a 16% share in the desktop cpu marketplace.


Why so obsessed/fanboyish on both sides?
By defiantsf on 3/16/2007 10:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Seems kinda strange for a lot of you to be so obsessed with either company unless you are an employee or a stockholder. Worried about having competition for the CPU market? Don't be. Where there are profits, the market will naturally produce new competitors or alternative solutions (read paradigm shift) to address the fundamental needs to capture those profits. Even Microsoft is not immuned to that inevitability long term.




RE: Why so obsessed/fanboyish on both sides?
By Darkskypoet on 3/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why so obsessed/fanboyish on both sides?
By zsdersw on 3/17/2007 8:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love AMD


Obviously.


RE: Why so obsessed/fanboyish on both sides?
By Darkskypoet on 3/17/2007 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
by zsdersw on March 17, 2007 at 8:51 AM

quote:
I love AMD

quote:
Obviously.


So you tell me what is incorrect in my post then... I mean go nuts. Really, I'd love to here something constructive.


RE: Why so obsessed/fanboyish on both sides?
By zsdersw on 3/17/2007 3:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
You're raising an issue that doesn't exist: incorrectness in your post.


RE: Why so obsessed/fanboyish on both sides?
By Darkskypoet on 3/17/2007 7:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious about the indication, by the one line you pulled from it, that it was fan personish or some such. But if there are no real gripes, then thats cool. I did forget to remove the last bit of junk after goodnight... sigh.

And add that I run and buy intel for my clients ATM...


RE: Why so obsessed/fanboyish on both sides?
By zsdersw on 3/17/2007 8:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
It was a showcase of everything AMD and nothing Intel, but nothing was incorrect about it.


By Darkskypoet on 3/18/2007 2:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Makes sense then. But I think certain points raised vis a vis the price war, and Netburst shipments was right on topic for the drop in Intel Revenue. I mean if you have to give away half your processors to put the pricing screws to AMD, its going to hurt your bottom line.

I think I was more miffed by the disappearance of the comment (perhaps due to my threshold, I am not sure I am new here.) after I created what I thought was a good post. ;)

It was worth more then that :)


AMD
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 12:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder how their 2006 revenue compares to 2005's AMD + ATI revenues added together. Did the sum grow?




RE: AMD
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 12:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
ATI+AMD in 2005 was $2.2B + $3.9 = $6.1B. So the sum did indeed grow to $7.5B in 2006.


RE: AMD
By Scorpion on 3/16/2007 1:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I wonder how big of an impact Dell's decision to use AMD chips had on increasing their revenue. I didn't see this mentioned anywhere. All I see are the conclusions that ATi was the big booster for AMD. I really think it would be interesting to see if you could draw any conclusions on the impact of Dell's exclusivity to Intel for so long.


RE: AMD
By Scorpion on 3/16/2007 1:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile, AMD in 2006 gained PC microprocessor market share at Intel's expense. AMD's PC microprocessor revenue rose by 35.5% in 2006 and its market share in that product segment increased to 16.1%, up 5 percentage points from 11.1% in 2005.


I suppose the answer lies somewhere within this statement... but that's not enough to conclude anything relating to Dell.


average joe's thoughts
By redfirebird15 on 3/16/2007 2:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hello everyone! I don't claim to be a fanboy for either company, nor am I a economist, but here is my opinion on the whole situation. First, niether company is going down the drain. Second, if Intel were to squash out AMD, which they could easily do, it could hurt not only by monopoly laws, but also it would be like firing an R&D staff you don't have to pay. Intel can easily reverse engineer anything AMD creates.
Also, we all know in the back of our minds that eventually we will hit a process/transistor barrier; where they get so small that you can't produce them with good yields. whoops hold that thought, gtg




RE: average joe's thoughts
By ElJefe69 on 3/16/2007 9:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt they will ever die too. look at cyrix. it still is a top competitor. it was the on the chip when Red Alert debuted.


What the...
By daftrok on 3/16/2007 3:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Um...how? Core 2 Duo spanks damn near every AMD processor out there. How did AMD rise up and Intel go DOWN?




RE: What the...
By 13Gigatons on 3/17/2007 7:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
Because the Athlon 64 x2 3800 is $95 and the cheapest C2D is $170. The x2 provides enough power for 80% of PC users who surf, play games, email, watch video, etc.

After April 22 when the price cuts of the e4300 will be $113 or less then it will be difficult to recommend the x2.


Vista is going to change the graphics market
By ntqback on 3/16/2007 4:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone has put down AMD's acquisition of ATI. the future is Vista, whether you like it or not. Even business systems will need high end 3D graphics now. Perhaps not as high as a gamers system but by todays standards quite high. So Fusion will most likely be a greatly needed boost for AMD when Vista kicks in.

For all those business computers that don't need graphics, I have a used Cirus Logic PCI graphics card that works great on Windows 98. Any takers.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/16/2007 8:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yea not really. I have 2 year old IGP's that can run Vista with AERO flawlessly. And these are our standard issue laptops, our newer ones have newer IGP's and work even better. No, Intel is just fine on Vista.


I'm confused...
By GaryJohnson on 3/16/2007 3:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles
AMD-ATI: A Done Deal
July 24, 2006, 5:00 AM













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