Conroe in July
- Thread starter deeznuts
- Start date
OEM's probably have them now or shortly. They need the lead time to build them and get them into the channel.
Bring it on, let's see has the better goods Conroe or AM2 and the best value. I'm starting to save my pennies.
Bring it on, let's see has the better goods Conroe or AM2 and the best value. I'm starting to save my pennies.
Yup, that's why I say I'll probably look into buying one in August, because it could be July 31st for all we know, and then a couple weeks usually for consumers to get their hands on one. We all know what's going to happen, with all the hype already bestowed on this, it's going to sell like hotcakes I'm sure of it, then the demand will be high, all the sites will start raising above MSRP, then supply will increase then we can get them for reasonable prices.
Unless of course Intel dumps a whole lot on the market and we don't have this situation.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 622
- 126
A "very aggressive ramp" is going to turn into a "very aggressive face plant" If Intel does not deliver on their promises.
How's that? Even if they don't deliver in June/July/August, they'll have still thrown a wet blanket over AMD's sales for an entire quarter. Maybe two. And then people will go "well crap, I've waited this long, I can wait another 4-6 weeks."
Vaporware release strategy worked for Microsoft for freezing competitors out of the market, and it will certainly work now, whether or not Intel delivers. If we don't start seeing real reviews of Conroe soon, start fearing the worst.
Now, will their stock do a short term faceplant if they don't deliver? You betcha.
Intel better do something fast, because they are falling hard. Their stock continues to slide and now they are talking about restructuring.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 622
- 126
That's a perception that does not match reality. Delivery and demand of systems does not turn overnight. AMD is shipping record number of processors. An announcement by Intel is not going to halt that in its tracks by any stretch.
That is hardly going to put a dent in AMD's shipments
I don't agree. The only thing that is going to halt the momentum AMD has, is if Intel's next-gen products actuall live up to the hype, AND they can deliver them in volume.
Not the announcement by itself, no. But combine that with the price cuts on Intel dual core CPUs, and it's enough to make enthusiasts pause. AMD is selling every CPU they make because up to a few days ago they were the undisputed price/performance leader. When Joe Average would ask the neighborhood PC enthusiast what they should buy, the answer was a resounding 'AMD.' That's not so clear today.
Let's wait and see. The dirt cheap Intel Netburst dual cores are suddenly selling in rat horde numbers, at least according to the out of stock buttons on newegg. Every Intel sold means an AMD cpu didn't get bought instead.
We'll know the answer to whether or not the announcement + price cuts put a dent in AMD's sales if AMD decides to respond by lowering their prices. AMD is small enough to notice a drop in demand in the retail channel very quickly. If we see no price cuts for a month or so, I'm wrong and you're right. If however we DO see lower AMD prices then Intel's strategy worked well enough to be noticed.
Long term, yes. Short term -- time will tell. I'm a bit worried by the 1B restructuring to cut costs. Cutting costs does NOT the way to grow your market share. If Intel's goal is to once again grow past 80% then shrinking certainly seems like the wrong way to do it.
What really would have hurt AMD is if Intel released Conroe compatable chipsets at the beginning of this year, instead of about now (Intel 975 "Bad Axe" rev 304 etc). Now that would have hurt AMD because enthusiasts would buy cheap Netburst chips now (clearing Intel's inventories), and then buy Conroe when it comes out. That probably would've hurt AMD more.
*Theoretically Anyway*
*Theoretically Anyway*
Joe Average would still suggest AMD now, and mention the choice of Intel's fire sale for processors that they are trying to clear out of inventory because they have something better coming down the road. Of course, the fire sale makes the Intel CPU's more competitive, but people don't want to buy dumped products. They want to be proud of their purchases and think they're getting the latest & greatest. ATM, in products you can buy, it's AMD. Next month or two, probably AMD. Whenever Mermon/Conroe release, then it's Intel's turn. Until then, Intel's hurting and cutting into their own profits.
IMO, AMD made a tactical error in not having a cut-rate dual core for the entry level, which was conversely a smart move by Intel. I don't know about AMD's reasons for not responding. In this case, the "dual core", from whatever make, is the cool & new thing, and the low low prices make them attainable.
Intel has three proven 300mm 65nm CPU plants and each one is capable of producing volume equal to all of AMD's total capacity. They have an equal number of 90 nm plants capable of producing chip sets.
Volume and manufacturing muscle is not an issue with Intel. Intel's problem will be complaceny. They seem to get bored with the CPU business and don't keep their eye on the ball. (a few years ago they were happier producing toys and video cameras then CPU's). Meanwhile AMD's passion to survive and agility takes over and leaves Intel's inefficient CPU designs in the dust.
This next round will be fun to watch. This time it's Otelinni vs Ruiz and the CPU designs have come from Intel's mobile group in Israel.
We aren't Joe Average. Joe Average is probably a Celeron or Sempron consumer in APAC.
Intel is probably trying to shore up it's profits by driving the market to dual core. Dual Core = cost effective 65nm technology. Single core has been 90nm technology.
AMD is probably avoiding dual core like the plague. Dual core kills them since it burns up about 2X their capacity and they won't have 65nm until '07.
My mistake -- as per the previous reference, I should have said "NPCE" or the long form "Neighborhood PC enthusiast" instead.
No and yes...
July is when they start shipping to OEMs for their lead time. We won't be able to actually buy one till September (at least) most likely.
We will probably see reviews in July at the launch, but not product. I'm sure that many people will keep waiting, but 99% of the purchasers buy a computer when they actually need a computer.
AMD will continue to sell every CPU they can make through the end of this year (and remember that's a lot! AMD will have tripled their production capacity by year's end).
Next year is a different matter...there's a lot of things that will come into play then.
1. AMD's 65nm ramp and their clockspeed on the new chips
2. K8L is due out next year
3. How fast can Intel ramp clockspeed on Conroe
4. How good is Conroe across it's entire line
Many other factors as well, those are just a few...
Either way, Conroe just isn't a marketshare issue for either company in 2006. However, selling the Netburst Dual cores at near cost just might be...we shall have to see. Up till now, the Presler hasn't been nearly as popular as Intel had hoped (which is why they had to cut prices so drastically). By selling all of their DC Netburst chips so cheap, they will be cutting their margins tremendously (and they're already at the lowest point they've been in my memory). The problem for Intel is that once you cut prices, it's near impossible to raise them again and it effects purchasing attitudes across your whole line of processors (Intel found this out with Celeron).
Hmm, I think I'll consider going Intel around September.. Sellin' the Opteron, mobo and RAM, maybe graphics card 
. It's easier to upgrade every year when you've got new stuff that's actually worth something .
. It's easier to upgrade every year when you've got new stuff that's actually worth something .Do the math. Intel's 4th quarter Conroe shipments will exceed AMD's entire chip output.
I'd say that's relevent.
Huh? 22% of Intel's performance desktop parts is NOWHERE NEAR even 10% of AMD's entire chip output...
Edit: Maybe I should help you with the math here...
1. In Q1 06 for Intel, $3 billion came from mobile parts, $5 billion came from all of the rest of their chips.
2. Of all the rest of their chips, the Celeron was the largest majority volume (by far) and it's not part of performance desktop.
3. The highest income of the "all of the rest" was the server lines (Xeon first followed by Itanium), and they also aren't part of the performance desktop parts.
4. If you take 22% of what's left after that you'll have the number of Conroe chips Intel expects to be able to ship by the end of Q4...
Edit 2: BTW, if you consider that Intel's ASP (Average Selling Price) was under $150 for all of their chips combined, then look at the cost of their chips, you will understand just how many of those chips were Celerons and just how few are P4/PD...
And this is exactly what Intel is trying to fix. Yes, historically P4/P4Ds were terrible price/performance bargains, and were avoided by enthusiasts like the plague for YEARS. After hearing that attitude from the local 'PC gurus' for years on end even the great unwashed are no longer afraid to buy AMD.
What Intel is trying to do is shift some of the bargain basement buyers into the mainstream. All that growth in AMD's market share Q42005 was due to the dirt cheap Sempron and Turion boxes HPaq is belching out. The cheapest Sempron boxes are plenty of power for the retail PC buyer, and so those buyers are going for the lowest priced choice.
If Intel can get buyers excited about the 'coolness' factor of PCs (dual core, viiv, etc) again and get them to start buying one notch up from the bottom of the barrel for only a few dollars more, they'll appear to have halted AMD's inroads into their market. The retail sales monkeys can say, "Yes, this Sempron box is $50-100 cheaper. But the Intel is dual-core, so it'll be TWICE as fast and last you much longer. Plus it's cool and new, and I have one!" Consumers love to 'future proof' when the cost difference is marginal. Not so much when the cost difference is 2x.
The approach is to make PCs an exciting toy again, not a commodity appliance where the only differentiator is price. Whether it'll work is a whole different question.
Conroe is very dangerous for AMD even in 2006. It'll be cheap to produce, and Intel can make them in staggering quantities. Unify your product line, flood the market, get AMD to flee the CPU business in mobile, desktop and then server. Desktop is important not because of the volume of sales, but because of the enthusiast recommendation factor. Desktops are like a racing program. Expensive, no great return on investment on their own, but they definitely affect the sales of both mobile and server parts.
Worry about raising margins later once you're a near-monopoly again. Analysts will treat much lower margins in a competitive situation much more kindly than slowly declining margins and shrinking market share.
Definitely not a bad strategy, IMO.
Not even close to that actually...
1. Conroe, we've gone over...
2. Merom...I think you need to understand how long it takes to actually penetrate the market (no matter how good a chip you have). For example, Yonah came out in January, yet it still accounts for less than 5% of Intel mobile parts.
3. Woodcrest...these will be the slowest of all to penetrate the market because of the lengthy qualifications required for servers.
In addition, AMD now has the production capacity for over 30% of the total (including embedded, game system, etc...) worldwide x86 production. They are currently shipping over 22%...
Total Core architecture chips combined won't even get to 10% of that this year, though Intel plans to ramp quickly into early next year. 2007 will be the first year that Core will have it's real shot.
Incorrect. But I think you already knew that.
"By 2008, AMD hopes to have the factory capacity in place that will allow it to produce 30 percent of the processors for the PC market. "
"Getting enough capacity to hit the 30 percent market share spot will take some work. Currently, AMD is putting equipment into 13,400 square meters of space in Fab 36. To get to 30 percent, AMD will have to fill up all 20,000 square meters of the building. It will also have to continue to exploit the facilities at Chartered."
http://news.com.com/AMD+starts+shipping...ps+from+plant/2100-1006_3-6057525.html
""We can get to 30 percent market share from Chartered and Fab 36," Ostrander said. "We have become a manufacturing powerhouse." "
http://news.com.com/With+new+factory,+A...against+Intel/2100-1006_3-5895124.html
"Our manufacturing strategy execution continues to be flawless," said Dirk Meyer, president and chief operating officer at AMD. "The increased capacity provided by Fab 36 will contribute to our goal of doubling total production output from 2005 through 2008. We are positioned better than ever to serve our customers' long-term needs and achieve our aggressive growth objectives"
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10737.html
Going by what AMD's own executives have said in the last few weeks and months, the ability to gain a 30% market share is still a couple of years away.
Link?
Agreed. But it does take quite awhile for market penetration to occur...even with the huge discounts. Consider that the systems have to be designed, tested, built in quantity, and then marketed...then you have to wait for what's called "market traction" to occur.
That was then...
Last quarter, AMD gained HUGE marketshare in servers and smaller marketshare in their other lines. However this month HPaq is releasing the first ever complete AMD business line systems. This will increase AMD's penetration into the business desktop market tremendously. It's especially effective because HP can match it with their DL285 and 585 servers for a total solution from a single OEM using a single architecture (something Intel did with them most effectively in the past). Unlike Dell, HP can offer a total package...
This is a very real possibility...but not this year. Intel simply won't have enough production volume on Conroe for an effective retail push until Q1.
Conroe isn't cheap to produce at all (yet)...remember it's 140 mm2 (even at 65nm) and at the very beginning of it's ramp (soon) which means that yields will still be poor for awhile. This is certainly the reason that Intel isn't ramping it any faster than they are.
I don't think Intel will ever go back to it's "former glory". Some of the key reasons they were able to maintain it so long are no longer possible...
1. Nobody had heard of AMD, certainly this has changed significantly over the last few years...and once the Genii's out of the bottle...
2. Intel can no longer "direct" the rest of the industry as to which standards must be accepted (the Rambus fiasco put an end to that)
3. The anti-trust suit prevents Intel from being as "aggressive" in their "marketing" as they have been in the past...
That link you posted on capacity is based on an outdated story that CNet wrote back in October
October story
It was written prior to AMD's Dec. expansion to Fab 30 (which is now producing WELL over it's original design). BTW, they are also talking about the expected capacity of 2008 (20% higher than this year).
As to a link on market numbers for Yonah, there obviously isn't one yet...it's from research I have done myself (over a period of several weeks). You can duplicate it however...just go to every major OEM and check on
1. release dates
2. cost of Core Duo systems
3. number of Core Duo systems compared to PM systems
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter