Can AMD make it?

[Carlis]

During the last years i have been using just amd and watching some bench marks it seem strange to me that any one would have gotten an intel at that time.
Yet, intel has kept its possition as the largest producer of processors.
Pretty much a deffault pc is an intel machine and AMD is used by people who activly choose it. Now with less oriented customers stickicking to intel, where will AMD make their monney? People with some insight in processor thechology will get the c2d...
Personally I see AMD loosing monney and I wonder if they can afford it in the long run...

Even if amd can respond after a while this will be a long period of making litte monney. I fear AMD will have trouble financing future projects etc if they are punished like this. The fact that so many intels are sold even when AMD make superior products mean they can stay aflote. I doubt the case is the same for AMD. Eventually periods when Intel have the lead will drain AMD on resources and they will be forced to give up... Or?

 

[Canterwood]

I think AMD have made enough gains in the last 3 years to be able to ride the storm, and hopefully keep competing with Intel.
I seriously doubt it'll take them as long to compete on a level field with Conroe as it took Intel to compete with AMD64.

However, If AMD do go under then the consumer is royally screwed! Period.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
I think AMD have made enough gains in the last 3 years to be able to ride the storm, and hopefully keep competing with Intel.
I seriously doubt it'll take them as long to compete on a level field with Conroe as it took Intel to compete with AMD64.

However, If AMD do go under then the consumer is royally screwed! Period.

Hey, if it means keeping AMD in business, they would get my money this round. I don't want to see them go anywhere, and I really don't think they will. They can ride out this storm. They've done very well these past years and made some serious inroads. Intel is just such a damn behemoth to compete with. I give AMD all the credit in the world. They will make a comeback, eventually. Make take a while this time as Intel seems SUPER focused on putting the hurt on AMD's market share, as in, wanting it back.

 

[Aluvus]

AMD will continue to draw revenue from flash memory production, for a start.

If they're smart (and we shall see), then they should have built up a bit of a war chest by now. K8 gave them a big push, and the impending price war has been in the making for a while now. They've had time to make some preparations, and hopefully this whole business will light a fire under their R&D folks.

 

[mhahnheuser]

AMD will weather Conroe just fine. C2D has some serious PR hurdles to clear yet.

1. Intel can't go too aggressive on it because it can easily canabolize P4 sales and these are needed to keep Chipzilla's market share as C2D will take some time to ramp up to fill P4's demise. The closest competitor to C2D is, you guessed it, 2 X A64.
2. Intel is re categorizing P4 (Flagship Proc) to Budget proc, is going to make average Dick very happy that he/she spent a premium on a top of the line P4 before C2D launch. Intel may be lucky if he ever considers "Intel Inside," again.
3. Average dick spent his life savings on 3.2 P4 dual core and now should upgrade to 2.6 C2D? Intel's strategy in the recent past is big MHz is great, Bigger MHz is even better is not going to make Dick a wise investor.
4. Prove to Dick that 2.6 C2D is faster than 3.2 P4 on integrated graphics? Isn't possible, or your playing with him.
5. At 2.4 and 2.6 Conroe is going to struggle against P4, particularly if the price gap means that vendors can add better value from the ATI/nVidia range of products, we know they're good.
6. A64 is mature, has higher PR numbers, is well respected and offers good value accross the processor range, and customers have learned not to worry too much about "Intel (not) Inside."
7. Changing server achitecture as AMD knows too well is not a small task undertaken lightly. Intel will do well to hold on to its customers with C2D, but it only does things a bit faster than Opty, so it will need to clean up opty in more areas than in pure speed. Remember its not outright speed that forced change in thinking, its was innovation and these companies are accutely aware or archtectural innovation and there are elements about C2D that are distinctly "old world."

 

[cmrmrc]

i don't think AMD is in trouble, look at how they were when the ATHLON XP were out against the P4...struggling but still hanging...then BAM new awesome chips...

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: cmrmrc
i don't think AMD is in trouble, look at how they were when the ATHLON XP were out against the P4...struggling but still hanging...then BAM new awesome chips...

It was AXP Barton that I beleive really shook Intel up. Northwood had AXP buttered up and then without MHz or price increase Northwood is challeneded again, hence Intel going for 800 FSB on Northwood (pulled the trigger too eaarly) and left no headroom for prescott and the rest they say is history.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser
AMD will weather Conroe just fine. C2D has some serious PR hurdles to clear yet.

1. Intel can't go too aggressive on it because it can easily canabolize P4 sales and these are needed to keep Chipzilla's market share as C2D will take some time to ramp up to fill P4's demise.
2. Intel is re categorizing P4 (Flagship Proc) to Budget proc, is going to make average Dick very happy that he/she spent a premium on a top of the line P4 before C2D launch.
3. Average dick spent his life savings on 3.2 P4 dual core and know should upgrade to 2.6 C2D? Intel's strategy in the recent past is big MHz is great, Bigger MHz is even better is not going to make Dick a wise investor.
4. Prove to Dick that 2.6 C2D is faster than 3.2 P4 on integrated graphics? Isn't possible, or your playing with him.
5. At 2.4 and 2.6 Conroe is going to struggle against P4, particularly if the price gap means that vendors can add better value from the ATI/nVidia range of products, we know they're good.
6. A64 is mature, has higher PR numbers, is well respected and offers good value accross the processor range, and customers have learned not to worry too much about "Intel (not) Inside."
7. Changing server achitecture as AMD knows too well is not a small task undertaken lightly. Intel will do well to hold on to its customers with C2D, but it only does things a bit faster than Opty, so it will need to clean up opty in more areas than in pure speed. Remember its not outright speed that forced change in thinking, its was innovation and these companies are accutely aware or archtectural innovation and there are elements about C2D that are distinctly "old world."

1. None of that is particularly relevant. Netburst chips will be properly positioned to fill the gap between C2D introduction and full production.

2. Average Dick didn't pay a lot for his Netburst-equipped PC (re: Dell special-of-the-day)

3. See #2.

4. Average Dick doesn't care.

5. C2D isn't going to struggle to sell whatsoever (supply exceeding demand).. at launch or further down the road.

6. Depends on the "customer". If you're going to go back to Average Dick. he doesn't care what chip it's got inside. He cares about price, free LCD monitors, and free shipping.

7. Woodcrest Xeons beat Opterons in the 1P and 2P space (a majority of the server market) across a wide range of apps. For "old world" tech (assuming that were an accurate appraisal of the situation), it sure does well against the Opteron's "architectural innovation". And people who buy servers don't care if the Woodcrest has things in common with the P6 of years past. If it performs excellently, doesn't generate a ton of heat or eat a ton of power, and is priced right.. it's a winner in their book.

 

[mhahnheuser]

zsdersw your right, so it gets back to the vendor who is going to compete on price/performance and that's not going to particularly avantage C2D. Do server purchasers care about hardware compatability? If they don't they'll be out there looking for a new job. Compatability = stability. Old world, (FSB v on die mem-controller/ hyper-transport). I've read that AMD are openning up to other componet manufacturers to make better use of hyper-transport links. You'd think there would be some serious performance gains here, particularly server side.

Now remember when A64 Athlon superseeded AXP Athlon, AMD protected the "Athon Brand Name" by dropping cache size 512 to 256 kb, and FSB speed to 333 MHz from 400 MHz. (incidently this hurt a bit, because all Barton's could run on 400 MHz FSB) and dropped the name Athlon and they became Semprons. Whereas Pentium Brand is going to evolve into a budget line. This is a big marketing difference, and don't try to hide from that.

5. C2D isn't going to struggle to sell whatsoever (supply exceeding demand).. at launch or further down the road. Surplus stock that's something for Intel to get really excited about at their next board meeting.

 

[potato28]

If AMD made it when P4's were still new, they will survive C2D until they figure out a great inovation that beats C2D without a major architechture change. If there was an archetechture change, AMD would lose more money re-tooling their fabs. If AMD can make a 65nm chip in the next year, I think they will gain.... but take my opinion like a grain of salt until we get more data.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: potato28
If AMD made it when P4's were still new, they will survive C2D until they figure out a great inovation that beats C2D without a major architechture change. If there was an archetechture change, AMD would lose more money re-tooling their fabs. If AMD can make a 65nm chip in the next year, I think they will gain.... but take my opinion like a grain of salt until we get more data.

And you are quite right to point this out. It costs millions to retool a plant, but don't forget we are expecting performance gains from our current processors on two fronts, 64 bit OS's and software, and multi threaded apps. A64, X2, P4 HT, P4 dual core are not done with yet. 64 bit should be here first, why? Because Celeron and Sempron are now 64 bit capable, and because they own a large share of the budget martket and can't make use of multi threaded apps we have to wait a while for that sort of software. However if there is one shinning light here is that if P4 can get a foothold in the budget range it will force AMD to add cores to Sempron and the multi-threaded software market will get a huge boost.

Now we can see the reason for AMD's mad scramble to get onto the AM2 platform. After C2D launch, Intel will have their budget cpus' and C2D on the same platform offering a wide range of muliti-core to 64 bit capable products where P4 will hang somewhere between C2D and Celeron which in turn is likely to follow the dinosaurs. This is a repositioning chance for AMD with AM2 socket to offer similar choices accross only one platform.

 

[Henny]

You all are forgetting one important factor. The PC OEM's will not let AMD suffer. It's in the best interest of the entire PC industry to maintain a competive environment between Intel and AMD.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser
zsdersw your right, so it gets back to the vendor who is going to compete on price/performance and that's not going to particularly avantage C2D. Do server purchasers care about hardware compatability? If they don't they'll be out there looking for a new job. Compatability = stability. Old world, (FSB v on die mem-controller/ hyper-transport). I've read that AMD are openning up to other componet manufacturers to make better use of hyper-transport links. You'd think there would be some serious performance gains here, particularly server side.

Now remember when A64 Athlon superseeded AXP Athlon, AMD protected the "Athon Brand Name" by dropping cache size 512 to 256 kb, and FSB speed to 333 MHz from 400 MHz. (incidently this hurt a bit, because all Barton's could run on 400 MHz FSB) and dropped the name Athlon and they became Semprons. Whereas Pentium Brand is going to evolve into a budget line. This is a big marketing difference, and don't try to hide from that.

Okay:

1. How is price/performance not advantageous for Intel when it comes to Core 2 Duo?

2. What is this about compatability?

3. FSB seems to be doing just fine. Though I do believe Intel is working on their own "IMC".

4. Increased performance from tweaking Hyper-Transport Links remains to be seen.

5. Your last sentence, "Don't try to hide from that." Is there a problem with the Pentium brand being moved to budget arena? That is where it belongs and will continue to sell if priced correctly. So who is hiding, and from what are they hiding?

 

[broly8877]

Originally posted by: Henny
You all are forgetting one important factor. The PC OEM's will not let AMD suffer. It's in the best interest of the entire PC industry to maintain a competive environment between Intel and AMD.

PC OEMs care about one thing and one thing only: Profits.

Just look at all the PC OEMs that went Intel exclusive a while back, whether it was Intel being monopolistic, offering huge rebates, or whatever, money was at the root of the decision.

If they see going Intel only is the road to highest profits (Which I doubt very much, by the way), then you can bet they wont hesitate to drop AMD.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser

Originally posted by: potato28
If AMD made it when P4's were still new, they will survive C2D until they figure out a great inovation that beats C2D without a major architechture change. If there was an archetechture change, AMD would lose more money re-tooling their fabs. If AMD can make a 65nm chip in the next year, I think they will gain.... but take my opinion like a grain of salt until we get more data.

And you are quite right to point this out. It costs millions to retool a plant, but don't forget we are expecting performance gains from our current processors on two fronts, 64 bit OS's and software, and multi threaded apps. A64, X2, P4 HT, P4 dual core are not done with yet. 64 bit should be here first, why? Because Celeron and Sempron are now 64 bit capable, and because they own a large share of the budget martket and can't make use of multi threaded apps we have to wait a while for that sort of software. However if there is one shinning light here is that if P4 can get a foothold in the budget range it will force AMD to add cores to Sempron and the multi-threaded software market will get a huge boost.

But first we need a mainstream 64-bit OS. Vista wont be it, as there will be the choice of the 32 bit and the 64 bit. Also most games havent really gotten a large boost from 64 bit processing.

And AMD isnt going to hold out on 64bit while Intel pushes forward with dual cores, SSE4, and other features. But thank God that the AMD X2's are very effcient, and can beat the 65nm 9xx's. The X2's will probably still be able to keep up in some programs, but Intel's always been strong in encoding performence.

But hopfully we'll just see another price war, and not a change of culture of making new features that will never be used in the real world.

 

[DrMrLordX]

sorry double post

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Aluvus
AMD will continue to draw revenue from flash memory production, for a start.

Eh? AMD span off their flash memory division:

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/04/14/0414automarketscan17.html

AMD is riding high on Opteron profits more than anything else. They can afford to take a beating in the desktop market for awhile (well, sort of).

 

[AnonymouseUser]

The real question is "Can Intel make it?"

C2D has destroyed Intel's Netburst market, a market that Intel is betting on to be +80% of their market through Q4. Huge inventory problems are ahead (and by yesterdays earnings release and CC, are already a huge problem). Cash is down (from $11.3B to $7.3B in 6 months), margins are down, revenues are down, and revenue guidance for the remainder of the year is down.

Hope none of you guys own Intel stock (and no, I don't own AMD stock [anymore]).

Edit >> Corrected cash figure

 

[mhahnheuser]

Vista is the first (let's qualify this before i have the Linux crowd on my back) "mass market" opportunity to venture into the new world of x86 64. When it reaches critical mass, and it will, 64 bit software will need to follow and gains will be made. No it won't hold back innovation, and new processors will have extra strings to their bow, but they to will, likewise take their time to mature, unless as in the past, a must have app appears that just happens to require that one enhancement. But of course a lot of work goes into avoiding just this scenario, because if Vista ran only on 64 bit processors tomorrow, all hell would break loose, just as Ms Windows 3.0/3.1 did moving from 286 to 386/486, and just as DOOM finished off production run of the fabled 486SX. But of course that's a comparative dull roar in comparison given the numbers affected by such a move today. (thank god i bought the 386 DX) that was an AMD cpu in my case as it turned out. So i owe AMD a debt of grattitude there. Remember when AMD started this whole 64 bit vision, they did qualify it by easing everyone's mind by saying it was going to be a smooth transition. Read long time transition. And let's face it there's still plenty of performance in 32 bit.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The real question is "Can Intel make it?"

C2D has destroyed Intel's Netburst market, a market that Intel is betting on to be +80% of their market through Q4. Huge inventory problems are ahead (and by yesterdays earnings release and CC, are already a huge problem). Cash is down (from $11.3B to $7.3B in 6 months), margins are down, revenues are down, and revenue guidance for the remainder of the year is down.

Hope none of you guys own Intel stock (and no, I don't own AMD stock [anymore]).

Edit >> Corrected cash figure

Yup, and that's not figuring in the loss of trade in/resale value lost by faithful Intel customers simply because they as off this week own a budget system.

 

[Stumps]

HOW OLD IS EVERYBODY IN THIS THREAD??

all this take of AMD falling on it's ass because Intel finally has a decent product, can't anybody think back to 1996/97 with intel having almost 100% of the cpu market and AMD had nothing but delays of it K5/K6 processors not to mention their very ordinary performance when compared to the Pentium MMX/Pentium 2 when they finally made it in to the marketplace .

back then there where THREE cpu manufacturers competiting in the x86 market and yet even with all the stuff ups AMD still survived and managed to eat into Intels market share.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser
zsdersw your right, so it gets back to the vendor who is going to compete on price/performance and that's not going to particularly avantage C2D. Do server purchasers care about hardware compatability? If they don't they'll be out there looking for a new job. Compatability = stability. Old world, (FSB v on die mem-controller/ hyper-transport). I've read that AMD are openning up to other componet manufacturers to make better use of hyper-transport links. You'd think there would be some serious performance gains here, particularly server side.

Now remember when A64 Athlon superseeded AXP Athlon, AMD protected the "Athon Brand Name" by dropping cache size 512 to 256 kb, and FSB speed to 333 MHz from 400 MHz. (incidently this hurt a bit, because all Barton's could run on 400 MHz FSB) and dropped the name Athlon and they became Semprons. Whereas Pentium Brand is going to evolve into a budget line. This is a big marketing difference, and don't try to hide from that.

Okay:

1. How is price/performance not advantageous for Intel when it comes to Core 2 Duo? (because it's new and will cost more than high performance budget cpu's)

2. What is this about compatability? (Generally it means that things integrate with each other more smoothly, more important in the server market than antwhere else.)

3. FSB seems to be doing just fine. Though I do believe Intel is working on their own "IMC". (Fine then why change?)

4. Increased performance from tweaking Hyper-Transport Links remains to be seen. (Deffinitely a gain, less links in the chain = higher productivity)

5. Your last sentence, "Don't try to hide from that." Is there a problem with the Pentium brand being moved to budget arena? That is where it belongs and will continue to sell if priced correctly. So who is hiding, and from what are they hiding?

(not unless you're unlucky to own a P4. Sell your P4 today and protect your investment.)

 

[mhahnheuser]

Whoops sorry didn't realised we'd flipped the page.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Whoops sorry didn't realised we'd flipped the page.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: Stumps
HOW OLD IS EVERYBODY IN THIS THREAD??

all this take of AMD falling on it's ass because Intel finally has a decent product, can't anybody think back to 1996/97 with intel having almost 100% of the cpu market and AMD had nothing but delays of it K5/K6 processors not to mention their very ordinary performance when compared to the Pentium MMX/Pentium 2 when they finally made it in to the marketplace .

back then there where THREE cpu manufacturers competiting in the x86 market and yet even with all the stuff ups AMD still survived and managed to eat into Intels market share.

Yes, but when they hit the market they were much cheaper. Those of us in the know added great graphics cards and still saved some, and kicked ass to boot. But don't forget that one of the 3 didn't survive, "RIP Cyrix."