Intel Earning report UP

[ahock]

Do you think Intel gain some market share from AMD though micro business of AMD also rose but Intel made an impressive financial report

 

[Duvie]

I dont know, I would have to see all of the report...The fact is INtel is in other markets with other products as well...Whereas fo AMD it other sole product was flash memory which drug AMD intot he Red...Without it the cpu division did very well as well.....

 

[ahock]

They didn't release the breakdown but they say that except laptop micros and wireless chips are up all are down including the flash. Wireless I guess is the one they put on the centrino and makes sense since they say Pentium M had a record sales.

 

[Duvie]

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160903480

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia...89ILVD00.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down

Intel said overall microprocessor unit shipments and average selling prices were essentially flat from the fourth quarter, though mobile microprocessors its Pentium M set a record.

Taken from : http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=685151

 

[Keysplayr]

Does everyone in this forum own semiconductor stock 'cept me? If not, why is this important? A good informational post for wall street, but I am curious why you felt compelled to post it.

 

[Duvie]

I dont....I kinda agree that this type of stuff is better elsewhere.....I really dont follow wallstreet...Market has been to volatile for my taste and the high tech arena especially...I think real estate is a better market for my money....

 

[imported_Ged]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Does everyone in this forum own semiconductor stock 'cept me? If not, why is this important? A good informational post for wall street, but I am curious why you felt compelled to post it.

Disclaimer: I'm not in the industry, but this is how I understand it.

If AMD makes more money by selling more CPUs and gaining on the Intel-dominated Microprocessor Market, then they will have more money to put into new fabs, new process technology, highering more engineers and designing a better product.

Of course, This is the same for Nvidia vs. ATI.

Designing a Microprocessor is very resource intensive. A good example of this is seen on Nvidia's site here (20MB WMV of Nvidia's (now old) 'engine room')

The more processing power you have to throw at the problem the better the final product is because you can test more options, run more simulations and figure out the best possible solution. This is a never-ending cycle. As a processor engineer you can always use more processing power.

 

[Hyperlite]

Yeah, i'm scarred to purchase any semiconductor stock...my money is in low gain long haul stuff, procter and gamble, etc...
I'd be willing to make a leap of faith and grab some stock in AMD's microprocessor division, as they returned massive gains this year.

 

[Insomniak]

I doubt AMD has much to worry about. Though they posted a loss this time around, they made a lot of very important friends - HP, IBM, Sun server divisions to be exact....

It's not glorious, but wins in the server arena mean a lot for street credit, and can provide good, solid, bankable revenue. What this generation did with K8 was get the word out in both the enthusiast market and the business machine market that AMD means business and can go toe to toe with Intel any day of the week and not blink.

That's a big, bold statement.

Intel has far greater recognition because for most of the 1990s they were it - "Intel" was synonymous with "PC". However, eventually the majority sways to the better product, so if AMD keeps hitting home runs and Intel keeps flubbing (as with Hammer vs. Prescott) you could see some substantial shift over to AMD in the next few years.

This time around, AMD got something better than earnings: They got credibility. If HP, IBM, and Sun, all titans in their areas, say "AMD is good enough for us" then that's going to mean a lot to the CEOs and COOs who make the purchasing decisions for their companies. AMD may end up with a large base firmly entrenched in the business market that will make them all but impossible to topple (much like the position IBM is in now).

However, it should be noted that these depend on a lot of Ifs and AMD playing their cards correctly. But they have a huge window of opportunity in the next few years, I think they know it, and I think they're going to do their damnedest to capitalize on it. The next few years could be very very interesting.


The bottom line is that a lot of major players who weren't paying attention to AMD before are doing so now (recall that Dell considered AMD...just 24 months ago that would have been a laughable thought) - and if AMD keeps up their current track record, the more those major players watch them, the more they'll like what they see.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ahock
Do you think Intel gain some market share from AMD though micro business of AMD also rose but Intel made an impressive financial report

My understanding is that if you actually do the math, Intel LOST market share this quarter. Basicly the numbers are misleading because this quarter is a longer one than the others at intel with 14 weeks, while AMD's quarter was only 13 weeks long.

Intel currently still has a higher average price for each cpu sold, but I expect things to change somewhat starting this quarter as AMD introduces its Dual Core chip fore the server market on the 21st and Intel isn't producing a comperable product until next year.

 

[Aenslead]

Actually, AMD's Processor division made quite some earnings, but overall, it did a loss in the last quarter due to the Flash Memory división, which made big time losses... which is the reason why they are selling it, and hopefully investing most of it on the CPU Division.

Good day.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Maybe that's WHY Intel charges more for its processors/chipsets? *shrug* could be.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Slightly OT, but Intel's brass for the most part are a bunch old farts that know far more about marketing and product placement than microprocessors. Their soon to be new CEO talks the talk of a marketing guy and not of an engineer. In the short term this may help Intel, but in the long run they are in real danger of getting farther and farther behind in technology, not to mention forward thinking and design. Intel lacks a unified goal IMO.

If it was not for their mobile division, Intel would be looking horrible right now. They are behind on the desktop, Prescott is barely gaining a foothold and they are already talking about 2-core platforms with totally different chipsets. Xeon is far, far too power hungry and quite honestly the technology is 5 years old. Feel free to disagree with me but in my view once you strip away the shine of the Intel branding the products look very old fashion. Intel is a marketing behemoth, but hardly a technology leader. Intel should be ashamed that a company 1/10th their size forced their hand on the 64 bit market, and the dual core market (a total disaster for them so far, no server solutions at all)

And it is paramount to remember that Intel does NOT HAVE a dual core chip. It is by definition a 2 core chip. Even if Intel gets their act together in the next year and produces a true dual core chip, it is going to AGAIN need a totally new platform to run on.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan
Slightly OT, but Intel's brass for the most part are a bunch old farts that know far more about marketing and product placement than microprocessors. Their soon to be new CEO talks the talk of a marketing guy and not of an engineer. In the short term this may help Intel, but in the long run they are in real danger of getting farther and farther behind in technology, not to mention forward thinking and design. Intel lacks a unified goal IMO.

If it was not for their mobile division, Intel would be looking horrible right now. They are behind on the desktop, Prescott is barely gaining a foothold and they are already talking about 2-core platforms with totally different chipsets. Xeon is far, far too power hungry and quite honestly the technology is 5 years old. Feel free to disagree with me but in my view once you strip away the shine of the Intel branding the products look very old fashion. Intel is a marketing behemoth, but hardly a technology leader. Intel should be ashamed that a company 1/10th their size forced their hand on the 64 bit market, and the dual core market (a total disaster for them so far, no server solutions at all)

And it is paramount to remember that Intel does NOT HAVE a dual core chip. It is by definition a 2 core chip. Even if Intel gets their act together in the next year and produces a true dual core chip, it is going to AGAIN need a totally new platform to run on.

And when they bring the P6 to the desktop, you may be singing a different song.


Other than that:
PC sales grew 10% year on year
Strong notebook sales caused shortages of Intel Mobile Chips

On the back of a 10% overall market increase, you would expect an increase in earnings.

 

[AnandThenMan]

And when AMD brings out their next uber super duper chip the song will change again. I am not talking about the future I am talking about the here and now.

Back to the original question, in the past AMD's shares have taken a hit at times when Intel posted worse than expected results. I'm not exactly sure why but it has happened. If Intel shipments go down, there are only 2 reasons. AMD gained market share, or the market was soft.

 

[sandorski]

Intel's gains are usually indicative of a strengthening marketplace, rather than at the expense of AMD(Flash does seem to be at the expense of AMD though). In fact Intel's gains could mean AMD will gain as well. Though as others pointed out the truth is in the details and Intel's gains maybe indicative of other companies potential gains, as Intel competes in a wider variety of products than does AMD.

 

[Zebo]

That's real nice but it's stock is still sucking ass this last year+. I bought at 29 been holding for what seems like forever for a rebound to sell that garbage. I'm not the best with stocks but this is one of my worst predictions. Reason I went in? We should have seen 4.5-5Ghz chips competeing with AMD FX's not what we have now. Just did'nt scale proper.

 

[Lithan]

Yeah Zebo, Intel is much stronger stock then amd... but it has less of a chance for growth... so less interest. Most of its volume from what I've watched is daytraders pushing price up a few % then dumping it and taking profits every day.