Can AMD make it?

[meksta]

lol....funny thread. I don't think AMD is going anywhere. If someone really thinks that C2D is going to fold up a company then...more power to you.

Arguable AMD just had the best 2-3 years in its history...they struggled through the years of 286,386,K5,K6 and still managed to survive. If you just look at one statistic, cash balance (minus debt) - AMD has 2 billion dollars, Intel has about 8 billion. Intel has 10x the market cap value and also 10x the number of employees. I think AMD is doing fine. Look it up yourself at Yahoo Finance.

Obviously the price cutting is going to be hurting AMD, but it'll be hurting Intel as well. We know that AMD has historically had lower margins than Intel yet AMD has still managed to build up lots of cash.

AMD will still survive even though they don't sell another CENT of products for atleast the next 12 months.

 

[mhahnheuser]

No doubt about it, no argument, AMD have done particularly well. Mind you they charge like the opposition too these days. But i have to say their products have improved out of sight as well. They're deffinitely here to stay.

 

[coldpower27]

AMD will survive, they have made it from their Athlon XP el cheapo days, they can weather this storm for awhile.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

Whatever you're smoking, it must be really good stuff..

Do server purchasers care about hardware compatability? If they don't they'll be out there looking for a new job. Compatability = stability.

What does that have to do with anything? The Woodcrest servers that are available for sale aren't just some willy-nilly hastily-thrown-together systems without a care in the world when it comes to compatibility. They're going to work.. and work just fine.

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.

The gains from the opening up of hypertransport are vaporware at this point. And, as I said, for being "old world tech", the FSB seems to do very well (and, in fact, beat) AMD's current offerings.

This is a big marketing difference, and don't try to hide from that.

Oh yes.. because the marketing dept. that convinced everyone to play the MHz game is going to have *such* a hard time introducing a new processor brand (Core 2 Duo) and highlighting its advantages.

Surplus stock that's something for Intel to get really excited about at their next board meeting.

There won't be any surplus stock of C2D until, at the earliest, production fully ramps.

 

[zsdersw]

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

Oh come on... if questioning AMD's ability to make it is "nonsense".. so too is it to question Intel's ability to make it.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: 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?

well...

for one thing notebooks comprise nearly half of all PC shipments, and Intel has basically killed AMD there since well.. forever.

amd really has only been seriously making a lot of money the last 2 years or so, its not really a huge amoun tof time to build a warchest, and they can easily lose all that money in the next year or 2 if they dont do someting.

its very similar to when they were very popular and made a lot of money pre-p4 (think athlon 800 days). they actually had about 25% of the total market then (and they were even worse in notebooks and servers than now, so they were doing really well in consumer desktops).

they are at just about 22% now, and finally have a bit more capacity, but with intel developing much more compelling designs they might start losing share / money again.


who knows how they will fare, but intel has a legitimate plan now, and seems to really be covering its bases. they are hitting them pretty hard. as intel has a pretty big lead to 45nm, and that is also around the time when intel's hypertransport competitor CSI will be released.

i also wouldnt worry about AMD going under. worst case scenario someone merges with them like IBM or some thing. or nvidia.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

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

Oh come on... if questioning AMD's ability to make it is "nonsense".. so too is it to question Intel's ability to make it.

Intel's business model is built on maintaining a monopoly. That monopoly is finally over, to the benefit of everyone, and OEMs are just as happy about it as the consumer. Intel's worst days lie ahead.

I don't doubt they will survive the near term, but if AMD can answer C2D in ~6 months, or if Intel fumbles the C2D launch (already lost 1 government contract), they will be in serious trouble.

 

[zsdersw]

AMD fanboy nonsense.. as expected.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: 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?

Some facts that might reassure you...
I just listened to the AMD conference call (report to analysts), and:

1. AMD gained marketshare again this quarter (confirmed in Intel's CC), and they appear to be supremely confident in gaining more through the end of this year at least
2. They have signed and are still signing agreements that will get them into "markets AMD has never been able to enter before". I know that part of this is an expansion into Dell's lineup...
3. There is a big difference between revenue share and marketshare (or unit share).
4. Intel's profit margins are projected (by Intel) to decrease through the end of the year, while AMD is projecting an increase or to be flat.
5. Intel is projecting revenue to be close to flat, while AMD is projecting a significant increase.
6. Intel has just laid off 1,000 employees, and they stated in their CC that they expect to lose several thousand more by year's end...AMD is hiring employees.
7. Intel is reducing their capital spending and R&D budgets, AMD is increasing theirs (from $1.7 to $2.5 billion) next year.

If this gives you the impression that AMD is far from cardiac arrest and is in fact still growing, then you are correct...
BTW, in Q1 AMD had $2.63 Billion in cash and only $658 million in total debt...I think they will be fine.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: hans007
well...

for one thing notebooks comprise nearly half of all PC shipments, and Intel has basically killed AMD there since well.. forever.

AMD has been gaining marketshare in notebooks every quarter for over a year...and I expect they took a BIG slice this last quarter. I say this because it was mentioned in the Intel CC that notebook sales were dissapointing due to a shift in buying patterns towards much less expensive models (AMD notebooks are typically much less expensive).

amd really has only been seriously making a lot of money the last 2 years or so, its not really a huge amoun tof time to build a warchest, and they can easily lose all that money in the next year or 2 if they dont do someting.

They've been making money since 1999...while the balance sheet didn't always show it, they were still making money. The reason that you didn't see this is that they were spending that money quite fast on Capital expenditures, so the profits were negative but the value of the company was increasing.

its very similar to when they were very popular and made a lot of money pre-p4 (think athlon 800 days). they actually had about 25% of the total market then (and they were even worse in notebooks and servers than now, so they were doing really well in consumer desktops).

This is an excellent example of confusing revenue share with marketshare (or unit share). At that time, AMD had 22-3% of the unit share, but they achieved this by dumping all of their K6 inventory in Asia at cost...they didn't have a server chip at all, but they were one of the largest in notebooks worldwide (K6 notebooks sold far better than anything from Intel, at least internationally they did).

they are at just about 22% now, and finally have a bit more capacity, but with intel developing much more compelling designs they might start losing share / money again.

They are still gaining marketshare, and are expected to continue doing so through the end of the year. Remember that Conroe is currently compelling only to a small segment of the market (at least until Intel starts selling them at under $100).

who knows how they will fare, but intel has a legitimate plan now, and seems to really be covering its bases. they are hitting them pretty hard. as intel has a pretty big lead to 45nm, and that is also around the time when intel's hypertransport competitor CSI will be released.

Ummm...no.
1. 45nm for Intel is expected to ship at the end of next year (AMD has recently pushed up their 45nm to mid 2008, 6 months after Intel)
2. CSI isn't due until Jan 2009...

 

[nyker96]

AMD is in trouble financially in the short term. It cannot cut prices like Intel. So it does need better chip to compete effectively. It also need to diversify business to draw revenue elsewhere. So far I think Intel will win for 1/2 year - 9months with core. Which is short compare to AMD's dominance of 2 years with A64. But they need a hit product soon AMD, cannot do this 1/2 price thing all the time or they would go out of business. They cannot keep making absolute chips and sell at 1/2 price this is going to loss big money, they need to redo the chip design, so they can make the same amount of chips but sell at a decent price.

 

[zsdersw]

Conroe is currently compelling only to a small segment of the market

Which would suggest that the at-launch availability issue (brought up in other threads) should be moot.

 

[Henny]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: 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?

Some facts that might reassure you...
I just listened to the AMD conference call (report to analysts), and:

1. AMD gained marketshare again this quarter (confirmed in Intel's CC), and they appear to be supremely confident in gaining more through the end of this year at least
2. They have signed and are still signing agreements that will get them into "markets AMD has never been able to enter before". I know that part of this is an expansion into Dell's lineup...
3. There is a big difference between revenue share and marketshare (or unit share).
4. Intel's profit margins are projected (by Intel) to decrease through the end of the year, while AMD is projecting an increase or to be flat.
5. Intel is projecting revenue to be close to flat, while AMD is projecting a significant increase.
6. Intel has just laid off 1,000 employees, and they stated in their CC that they expect to lose several thousand more by year's end...AMD is hiring employees.
7. Intel is reducing their capital spending and R&D budgets, AMD is increasing theirs (from $1.7 to $2.5 billion) next year.

If this gives you the impression that AMD is far from cardiac arrest and is in fact still growing, then you are correct...
BTW, in Q1 AMD had $2.63 Billion in cash and only $658 million in total debt...I think they will be fine.

Projections are meaningless. Actuals are what counts.

P.S. Intel gained market share in Q2 as measured by units.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Henny

Projections are meaningless. Actuals are what counts.

P.S. Intel gained market share in Q2 as measured by units.

Ummm...Intel is telling their shareholders that they are expecting to make less profit, I don't know if I'd call that meaningless.

And no, I don't believe that Intel actually DID gain unit share...at least Intel didn't think so (and neither did AMD).

 

[imported_wicka]

Wouldn't it be easier just to wait six days and see how the launch actually goes? It seems moot to try to predict an event that is less than a week away.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: wicka
Wouldn't it be easier just to wait six days and see how the launch actually goes? It seems moot to try to predict an event that is less than a week away.

Tell that to the speculators, the gamblers, the dreamers....

 

[BitByBit]

Having just read Anand's Core 2 review, if AMD wants to be even remotely competitive this year, then it needs revision G, ASAP. December / early 2007 is simply too late.

The advantages shown in those benchmarks were far in excess of what I was expecting.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Henny
Projections are meaningless. Actuals are what counts.

P.S. Intel gained market share in Q2 as measured by units.

Yes, actuals are what count. Intel's inventory swelled to $4.3B from $3.5B last Q, and $3.1B the previous Q. Intel even made the following statements:

Total microprocessor units were lower.

Microprocessor unit sales were below seasonal patterns as customers reduced their processor inventory levels to seasonally appropriate levels in a highly competitive pricing environment.

Yet somehow they gained marketshare?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Henny
Projections are meaningless. Actuals are what counts.

P.S. Intel gained market share in Q2 as measured by units.

Yes, actuals are what count. Intel's inventory swelled to $4.3B from $3.5B last Q, and $3.1B the previous Q. Intel even made the following statements:

Total microprocessor units were lower.

Microprocessor unit sales were below seasonal patterns as customers reduced their processor inventory levels to seasonally appropriate levels in a highly competitive pricing environment.

Yet somehow they gained marketshare?

Then that means overall sales unit are lower for both companies.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Henny
Projections are meaningless. Actuals are what counts.

P.S. Intel gained market share in Q2 as measured by units.

Yes, actuals are what count. Intel's inventory swelled to $4.3B from $3.5B last Q, and $3.1B the previous Q. Intel even made the following statements:

Total microprocessor units were lower.

Microprocessor unit sales were below seasonal patterns as customers reduced their processor inventory levels to seasonally appropriate levels in a highly competitive pricing environment.

Yet somehow they gained marketshare?

Then that means overall sales unit are lower for both companies.

AMD states from Q1 to Q2:

Total microprocessor unit shipments were down four percent sequentially. (emphasis mine)

Exactly how much market share could Intel have (re)gained?

 

[sandorski]

The OPs premise is wrong. Intel survived because AMD simply couldn't meet all the demand for processors. AMD pretty much spotted Intel 70%+ of the Market. Not cause they're Good Guys though, but because they simply don't have the manufacturing capacity.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OPs premise is wrong. Intel survived because AMD simply couldn't meet all the demand for processors. AMD pretty much spotted Intel 70%+ of the Market. Not cause they're Good Guys though, but because they simply don't have the manufacturing capacity.

Your premise is wrong too. Intel's survival didn't hinge upon AMD's production capacity. Even if AMD had a lot more capacity than it does, there's a rather large portion of the overall market that would still soak up Intel chips.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OPs premise is wrong. Intel survived because AMD simply couldn't meet all the demand for processors. AMD pretty much spotted Intel 70%+ of the Market. Not cause they're Good Guys though, but because they simply don't have the manufacturing capacity.

Your premise is wrong too. Intel's survival didn't hinge upon AMD's production capacity. Even if AMD had a lot more capacity than it does, there's a rather large portion of the overall market that would still soak up Intel chips.

We can't conclude that with 100% certainty. AMD sold everything it could produce, if it had 2-3x more Production, who knows what would/could have happened.

 

[erwin1978]

Hello everyone. This is quite an interesting thread you've got going. Well, it's been a tough week for me as I just lost my job. I'm an AMD technichian as many of you know. I just returned from Fab30 last week. My main duties were pouring molten silicon in A64 molds. That was my job. Anyway, Fab30 is being closed for reasons unknown to me. I bet it has something to do with Core 2 Duo.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: 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?

Based on your spelling and grammar, it's hard to see you as an authoritative source.

Intel is also sucking air. They have a huge inventory overhang problem, which has been all over the news this week. Conroe is not going to fix that. Dell, which has sold Intel's POS chips exclusively, is also getting hammered. They're paying for the fact that they're selling obsolete junk based on Intel's NetBurst chips which no one wants any more.

Maybe you should go read something besides your MySpace page once in awhile.