Ok I had to respond to the quote below in brackets. I figured I'd start a new thread as this covers so many area's
((((((Look at the economic facts. These are companies we are talking about, the roaring '90s are over a company has to make a profit to survive. Intels profits have risen 15% last time they announced. AMD missed it's target. It is most likely that both companies will survive. All we as consumers cna hope for is fierce competition on prices. (and don't give me the AMD is cheaper line because that is just not true any more))))))))
Ok Let us look at the economic facts.
Amd came in at 12 cents per share this Q and was expected to come in at 14 cents per share earlier but a couple of week before earnings they warned they would not meet eps do to severe loss in flash. Don't get me wrong amd did make money in flash (15 mill) but no where near as much as in the last few quarters.
So why did amd not make as much money in flash? It's quite simple Intel also makes flash but flash memory only account for 7% of Intel’s sales yet for amd it's around 50% of sales. Intel flooded the market with cheap flash this Q at a huge loss something like at 255 million ((loss)) yet AMD still made 15 million in flash alone despite the falling prices do to Intel taking market share in flash at a big loss. Intel knew they were manufacturing and selling flash at a loss but this makes their only real competitors threat appear to be doing worse then it really is. I am sure Intel dose not like selling flash at a loss of 255 million but it hurt AMD much more thus making amd and Intel appear similar as they usually do in earnings based on amd having 15 - 20% cpu share.
So with AMD loosing most profits in 50% of there revenue flash why did AMD come in at 12 cents per share in stead of 7 or 8 cents per share? I will tell you why AMD took CPU market share and increased ASP's (average selling price) AMD 's cpu sales went up 30% year over year and 23 % sequentially (quarter over quarter) Intel’s only went up 5%.
So how did intel meet their lowered expectation for the 3rd quarter at 30 cents per share or 15% over last year 3Q when AMD is 30% over last year 3Q. Somehow the tax bracket for Intel dropped from 30% to 19% and the fact they bought back 106 million of there own shares (this make the earnings per share dividable among less shares in total) they bought the shares back not with current revenue but with banked cache from the 1990's thus buying shares that should be declining less buyers.. Intel has been doing this all year 250+ shares this year.
AMD is gaining CPU share along with rising asp's (they earned it) so the future looks bright for AMD. Right now AMD can only take a limited amount of cpu share do to manufacturing limitations. However AMD is increasing production by using 90nm,, and fab36 should be producing on 300 mill wafers in mid 05 and in full production by the end of that year. This should triple AMD 's cpu manufacturing capability.
Some people will claim AMD will not produce faster chips because Intel cannot so why bother. These are half truths in the desktop arena AMD only needs the performance crown something editors like Omid of THG still to this day have denied AMD. AMD is limited in production so the goal is to increase yields... Less cache lower clocks and higher yields. More profit that way. Intel throws huge cache at the problem and over produces their many fabs to bin a few high performance cpu's this is why the huge inventory glut at Intel lots of 2.2 giz Prescott’s with 256 kb of usable cache. I don't say huge inventory glut lightly it's very big. Intel is in deep do do because they lost the crown by dropping their design from a 6 cylinder cpu to a 4 cylinder cpu at higher RPM (in order to misleads buyers that think MHz is everything). AMD went screw the six cylinder let go for the 8 cylinder and higher performance at lower RPM.
I believe AMD will put max performance into server chips i.e.: Opteron as that is where less are fooled and more money can be made by having a massive performance advantage. and for 2005 AMD will put enough energy into maintaining a clear advantage over Intel desktops in order to maintain pricing control but not exceeding their manufacturing capacity and keeping costs down and margins high. IE: if you can bin 3.0 Ghz 256 cache and yields are 100% at 54 mm squared and 400 cpu per wafer how does that compare to 3.4 ghz with 2 megs cache at half yields and 140mm squared at 80 cpu's per wafers when they perform the same over all? Remember more cache bigger die less cpu's and more rejects cause of faulty cache. Where Intel does have an advantage is in mobile a out-performing and growing sector. Intel has an edge with Dothan and power saving AMD is not far behind but not up to speed (power wise) however Intel needs to look at Transmeta their shrink from 130nm to 90 nm jumps performance from 1 GHz to 2GHz and that is a threat to Intel in the mobile arena.
What AMD needs is more OEM support but they are fighting a tuff battle. (Intel inside marketing program) I have seen foolish people in the past say Dell won't use AMD because of chip supply or crappy mother boards from via. I argued that was not the real reason in the past and it's clearly not the reason today. It is now clearly apparent even to the most naive that dell refusal to offer AMD computer to a gamer or IT server guy with AMD cpu inside is marketing related. Something forum members here at THG should be happy to explain without letting bias emotions get in the way.
Things don't look good for Intel right now but considering they have 80% x86 market share the consumer will be the winner over all. and that's what count's. Not considering I own shares in AMD based on what I believe is fact so take this with a grain of salt but Ido truly believe everything I just said is true.
Just my 2 cents and I did not post this to pump amd stock. I just want the facts set straight!
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
((((((Look at the economic facts. These are companies we are talking about, the roaring '90s are over a company has to make a profit to survive. Intels profits have risen 15% last time they announced. AMD missed it's target. It is most likely that both companies will survive. All we as consumers cna hope for is fierce competition on prices. (and don't give me the AMD is cheaper line because that is just not true any more))))))))
Ok Let us look at the economic facts.
Amd came in at 12 cents per share this Q and was expected to come in at 14 cents per share earlier but a couple of week before earnings they warned they would not meet eps do to severe loss in flash. Don't get me wrong amd did make money in flash (15 mill) but no where near as much as in the last few quarters.
So why did amd not make as much money in flash? It's quite simple Intel also makes flash but flash memory only account for 7% of Intel’s sales yet for amd it's around 50% of sales. Intel flooded the market with cheap flash this Q at a huge loss something like at 255 million ((loss)) yet AMD still made 15 million in flash alone despite the falling prices do to Intel taking market share in flash at a big loss. Intel knew they were manufacturing and selling flash at a loss but this makes their only real competitors threat appear to be doing worse then it really is. I am sure Intel dose not like selling flash at a loss of 255 million but it hurt AMD much more thus making amd and Intel appear similar as they usually do in earnings based on amd having 15 - 20% cpu share.
So with AMD loosing most profits in 50% of there revenue flash why did AMD come in at 12 cents per share in stead of 7 or 8 cents per share? I will tell you why AMD took CPU market share and increased ASP's (average selling price) AMD 's cpu sales went up 30% year over year and 23 % sequentially (quarter over quarter) Intel’s only went up 5%.
So how did intel meet their lowered expectation for the 3rd quarter at 30 cents per share or 15% over last year 3Q when AMD is 30% over last year 3Q. Somehow the tax bracket for Intel dropped from 30% to 19% and the fact they bought back 106 million of there own shares (this make the earnings per share dividable among less shares in total) they bought the shares back not with current revenue but with banked cache from the 1990's thus buying shares that should be declining less buyers.. Intel has been doing this all year 250+ shares this year.
AMD is gaining CPU share along with rising asp's (they earned it) so the future looks bright for AMD. Right now AMD can only take a limited amount of cpu share do to manufacturing limitations. However AMD is increasing production by using 90nm,, and fab36 should be producing on 300 mill wafers in mid 05 and in full production by the end of that year. This should triple AMD 's cpu manufacturing capability.
Some people will claim AMD will not produce faster chips because Intel cannot so why bother. These are half truths in the desktop arena AMD only needs the performance crown something editors like Omid of THG still to this day have denied AMD. AMD is limited in production so the goal is to increase yields... Less cache lower clocks and higher yields. More profit that way. Intel throws huge cache at the problem and over produces their many fabs to bin a few high performance cpu's this is why the huge inventory glut at Intel lots of 2.2 giz Prescott’s with 256 kb of usable cache. I don't say huge inventory glut lightly it's very big. Intel is in deep do do because they lost the crown by dropping their design from a 6 cylinder cpu to a 4 cylinder cpu at higher RPM (in order to misleads buyers that think MHz is everything). AMD went screw the six cylinder let go for the 8 cylinder and higher performance at lower RPM.
I believe AMD will put max performance into server chips i.e.: Opteron as that is where less are fooled and more money can be made by having a massive performance advantage. and for 2005 AMD will put enough energy into maintaining a clear advantage over Intel desktops in order to maintain pricing control but not exceeding their manufacturing capacity and keeping costs down and margins high. IE: if you can bin 3.0 Ghz 256 cache and yields are 100% at 54 mm squared and 400 cpu per wafer how does that compare to 3.4 ghz with 2 megs cache at half yields and 140mm squared at 80 cpu's per wafers when they perform the same over all? Remember more cache bigger die less cpu's and more rejects cause of faulty cache. Where Intel does have an advantage is in mobile a out-performing and growing sector. Intel has an edge with Dothan and power saving AMD is not far behind but not up to speed (power wise) however Intel needs to look at Transmeta their shrink from 130nm to 90 nm jumps performance from 1 GHz to 2GHz and that is a threat to Intel in the mobile arena.
What AMD needs is more OEM support but they are fighting a tuff battle. (Intel inside marketing program) I have seen foolish people in the past say Dell won't use AMD because of chip supply or crappy mother boards from via. I argued that was not the real reason in the past and it's clearly not the reason today. It is now clearly apparent even to the most naive that dell refusal to offer AMD computer to a gamer or IT server guy with AMD cpu inside is marketing related. Something forum members here at THG should be happy to explain without letting bias emotions get in the way.
Things don't look good for Intel right now but considering they have 80% x86 market share the consumer will be the winner over all. and that's what count's. Not considering I own shares in AMD based on what I believe is fact so take this with a grain of salt but Ido truly believe everything I just said is true.
Just my 2 cents and I did not post this to pump amd stock. I just want the facts set straight!
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram