Can AMD make it?

[zsdersw]

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.

AMD selling everything it could produce does not necessitate the same result given higher production capacity.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Intel is also sucking air. They have a huge inventory overhand 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.

Oh yes, because the typically slow sales time of the year that this is has nothing to do with it. :roll:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

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.

AMD selling everything it could produce does not necessitate the same result given higher production capacity.

Of course it doesn't, in fact at some point that is always true.

 

[zsdersw]

But you were speaking so matter-of-factly before...

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Intel is also sucking air. They have a huge inventory overhand 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.

Oh yes, because the typically slow sales time of the year that this is has nothing to do with it. :roll:

Like I said, check the news, dude.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
But you were speaking so matter-of-factly before...

I did?

 

[dev0lution]

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

Well they did gain retail market share as was reported here. And I've seen quite a few other places where units shipped topped AMD in a reversal of a couple prior quarters.

mhahnheuser's P4 argument is basically asinine. Did you happen to miss the new branding launch a couple of months ago? Yes, the P4 is pretty much a budget processor. For that matter, so are a lot of A64 single-core parts. You're missing a minor product line called Pentium D, which is what's meant to replace P4 as Intel transitions to a majority dual-core lineup.

AMD's not going anywhere, but they're going to have an interesting 2nd half and 2007. After all, it's not good timing to lose the price/performance war right around back to school and the holiday shopping season. They're still challenged with fab capacity, which is only going to get worse as they gain more OEM skus from Dell, HP, etc.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dev0lution

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

Well they did gain retail market share as was reported herehere. And I've seen quite a few other places where units shipped topped AMD in a reversal of a couple prior quarters.

mhahnheuser's P4 argument is basically asinine. Did you happen to miss the new branding launch a couple of months ago? Yes, the P4 is pretty much a budget processor. For that matter, so are a lot of A64 single-core parts. You're missing a minor product line called Pentium D, which is what's meant to replace P4 as Intel transitions to a majority dual-core lineup.

AMD's not going anywhere, but they're going to have an interesting 2nd half and 2007. After all, it's not good timing to lose the price/performance war right around back to school and the holiday shopping season. They're still challenged with fab capacity, which is only going to get worse as they gain more OEM skus from Dell, HP, etc.

Problems with the article you linked...

1. It references only Current Analysis, a fairly recent (1997) startup company (the board is made up of venture capital companies) that has a client list of only about 250 companies (VERY small). I would take their results with a spoonful of salt...
2. It is only talking about one of the smallest segments of the market share, retail US market.
3. Both Intel and AMD agree that AMD gained marketshare this last quarter...we will have to wait for the Gartner report before knowing how much...

Secondly, in the Intel CC they said that Pentium D's didn't sell nearly as well as expected (hence the lowered ASP), even with the price cuts...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
Oh yes, because the typically slow sales time of the year that this is has nothing to do with it. :roll:

While you are correct about the time of year being a factor, they also sold MUCH less than they did this same time last year...

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Intel is also sucking air. They have a huge inventory overhand 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.

Oh yes, because the typically slow sales time of the year that this is has nothing to do with it. :roll:

Like I said, check the news, dude.

Both AMD and Intel gained in inventory levels in Q2 2006.

AMD went from 337 Million to 405 Million 20.2 % Increase

Intel went from 3.56 Billion to 4.33 Billion 21.5% Increase

More or less on par with each other, though Intel has 10x the inventory in cash value then AMD does.

 

[zsdersw]

While you are correct about the time of year being a factor,

That's all I was trying to say.

I still find it hard to believe that you own any Intel stock, Viditor. As relatively balanced as you are, you still come across as a pro-AMD shill.

 

[formulav8]

I own AMD and Intel stocks. I own about 30% more Intel stock than AMD. So, that means I should be a fanboy for Intel? I have more of a reason to be a Intel or AMD fanboy than most people in this forum since i'm a shareholder and want them to make money since I personally benefit from it. But I am not a fanboy of either company. Thats why I can't understand why anyone would want to be a fanboy of either company since they care nothing about you. At least they have a small amount of accountability to me since I invest in their companys. But I still resist from being a faniot. Anyways, my penny or two.


Jason

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

While you are correct about the time of year being a factor,

That's all I was trying to say.

I still find it hard to believe that you own any Intel stock, Viditor. As relatively balanced as you are, you still come across as a pro-AMD shill.

I own a few thousand shares of INTC actually, but (especially since my limit buys went through last night) I do own 10 times that number (as of now) of AMD shares.
I do try to be balanced, but I must admit that I have an AMD bias...The marketing stuff Intel used to do really pissed me off, and I think I overcorrect sometimes.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: formulav8
I own AMD and Intel stocks. I own about 30% more Intel stock than AMD. So, that means I should be a fanboy for Intel? I have more of a reason to be a Intel or AMD fanboy than most people in this forum since i'm a shareholder and want them to make money since I personally benefit from it. But I am not a fanboy of either company. Thats why I can't understand why anyone would want to be a fanboy of either company since they care nothing about you. At least they have a small amount of accountability to me since I invest in their companys. But I still resist from being a faniot. Anyways, my penny or two.


Jason

Well, it depends, owning stock in company X doesn't gurantee you as a fanboy of company x, but it make it seem more likely that you could be. It's not an absolute.

This is the same concept with owning products from both companies. There are fanboys that own products from both companies. It's just makes it seems less likely that you should be a fanboy, but again it is not an absolute.

 

[dev0lution]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Problems with the article you linked...

1. It references only Current Analysis, a fairly recent (1997) startup company (the board is made up of venture capital companies) that has a client list of only about 250 companies (VERY small). I would take their results with a spoonful of salt...
2. It is only talking about one of the smallest segments of the market share, retail US market.
3. Both Intel and AMD agree that AMD gained marketshare this last quarter...we will have to wait for the Gartner report before knowing how much...

Secondly, in the Intel CC they said that Pentium D's didn't sell nearly as well as expected (hence the lowered ASP), even with the price cuts...

I didn't claim the article was the be-all end-all of analysis, it was an example. And it was fine enough for AMD fanboys 2 qtrs back when they were happily mewing to themselves about AMD gaining retail share. AMD probably did gain share... on server.

And the Pentium D point was meant for upcoming quarters, since mhahnheuser's comments about devaluing the P4 brand was made in reference to Conroe's launch and beyond. Intel will be pushing the ramp up to a mostly Dual Core lineup in Q3 and Q4, which pretty much makes the argument of Conroe vs. P4 stupid. It'll be PD vs. Conroe sales.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dev0lution

Originally posted by: Viditor

Problems with the article you linked...

1. It references only Current Analysis, a fairly recent (1997) startup company (the board is made up of venture capital companies) that has a client list of only about 250 companies (VERY small). I would take their results with a spoonful of salt...
2. It is only talking about one of the smallest segments of the market share, retail US market.
3. Both Intel and AMD agree that AMD gained marketshare this last quarter...we will have to wait for the Gartner report before knowing how much...

Secondly, in the Intel CC they said that Pentium D's didn't sell nearly as well as expected (hence the lowered ASP), even with the price cuts...

I didn't claim the article was the be-all end-all of analysis, it was an example. And it was fine enough for AMD fanboys 2 qtrs back when they were happily mewing to themselves about AMD gaining retail share. AMD probably did gain share... on server.

And the Pentium D point was meant for upcoming quarters, since mhahnheuser's comments about devaluing the P4 brand was made in reference to Conroe's launch and beyond. Intel will be pushing the ramp up to a mostly Dual Core lineup in Q3 and Q4, which pretty much makes the argument of Conroe vs. P4 stupid. It'll be PD vs. Conroe sales.

I beleive that the only segment that AMD might have stayed flat in was desktop...they gained share in both server and mobile, and they had an overall gain as well (both in units as well as revenue share IIRC).

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

While you are correct about the time of year being a factor,

That's all I was trying to say.

I still find it hard to believe that you own any Intel stock, Viditor. As relatively balanced as you are, you still come across as a pro-AMD shill.

I am gonna have to agree with you on this point zsdersw.

Originally posted by: Viditor
I own a few thousand shares of INTC actually, but (especially since my limit buys went through last night) I do own 10 times that number (as of now) of AMD shares.
I do try to be balanced, but I must admit that I have an AMD bias...The marketing stuff Intel used to do really pissed me off, and I think I overcorrect sometimes.

Now that seems like an understatement, I have noticed alot of occurances where you get infromation wrong in AMD's favor. Though I guess it counts for something, that at least you can admit you have an AMD bias.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Now that seems like an understatement, I have noticed alot of occurances where you get infromation wrong in AMD's favor. Though I guess it counts for something, that at least you can admit you have an AMD bias.

OK...so are you going to admit to your Intel bias now?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Now that seems like an understatement, I have noticed alot of occurances where you get infromation wrong in AMD's favor. Though I guess it counts for something, that at least you can admit you have an AMD bias.

OK...so are you going to admit to your Intel bias now?

Ha, well I can admit, I have a preference for Intel products, but nothing more then that, I am interested in factual information, it doens't matter who it favors, I don't get information wrong in favor of Intel.