Is Intel too expensive?

[Idontcare]

New jobs created, competition created. I call that a good deal for most people.



I would rather see it as the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. I don't really see how this compares to intel's bribery where the majority (consumers and legit OEM's) are being harmed and only Intel and a few choice OEM's are profiting?



The difference being GF's tax rebates for creating jobs are in fact legitimate while intel's bribery isn't? I don't even know how you can start to compare the two.

Ah, I see, you are a "the ends justify the means" sort of guy.

The divide between ethical and unethical is one of convenience, push the line around as you see fit all in the name of "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few".

If it can be justified then it must be ethical. Now I understand what this is really all about.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I voted no.

A 3570K costs as much as a good dinner for two.

A 3750K cost around the same as a smoker smokes for in a month or 2 here in Denmark.

Or it cost the same as around 10 days of food for a household.

Or the same as 3 months with 100mbit internet or full cable TV package.

Or around 1/3rd of a normal quality bicycle.

Or around 3 times going out to party.

Or as you say, a good dinner out for 2.

Its just freaking cheap nomatter how you turn it 😛

 

[SiliconWars]

Ah, I see, you are a "the ends justify the means" sort of guy.

The divide between ethical and unethical is one of convenience, push the line around as you see fit all in the name of "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few".

If it can be justified then it must be ethical. Now I understand what this is really all about.

You could apply your logic to just about anything in life and you'll always end up with somebody being harmed. If it's a choice between consumer and corporation than its a very easy choice for me. If a few people need to "suffer" (paying taxes that they already paid?) so that many more can prosper then so be it. Chances are the people who are suffering made hay while the sun was shining and they had a monopoly on the market.

 

[vladicaris]

Intel was always better that AMD ,also expensive all time 🙂 for work intel is much better,but for games,that doesn't much difference if you have smooth gameplay all the time 🙂

 

[SiliconWars]

And then reality called?

You do know that discrete cards account for almost a third of AMDs revenue?

AMDs only, and somewhat very limited, success is the discrete market. They lose money on their CPU division.

AMD's discrete gpu sales will be making around $200 million a quarter (from this point onward), so more like 1/5th.

In 2004 ATI had revenues of $600 million a quarter. The market is going away, quickly. The low end is being replaced by IGP, the high end is disappearing due to lack of innovation. Soon the middle end will be replaced by IGP as bandwidth restrictions are lifted.

AMD is already well set on their way towards a discrete gpu-less future.

 

[Arachnotronic]

AMD's discrete gpu sales will be making around $200 million a quarter, so more like 1/5th.

In 2004 ATI had revenues of $600 million a quarter. The market is going away, quickly. The low end is being replaced by IGP, the high end is disappearing due to lack of innovation. Soon the middle end will be replaced by IGP as bandwidth restrictions are lifted.

AMD is already well set on their way towards a discrete gpu-less future.

Funny how Nvidia's GeForce division still does ~$630M/qtr (this is without the Intel royalty payment).

That doesn't include Quadro/Tesla.

 

[Ferzerp]

Now I understand what this is really all about.

It's all about the "AMD GOOD; INTEL BAD" crusade. We knew that though.

 

[ShintaiDK]

AMD's discrete gpu sales will be making around $200 million a quarter, so more like 1/5th.

In 2004 ATI had revenues of $600 million a quarter. The market is going away, quickly. The low end is being replaced by IGP, the high end is disappearing due to lack of innovation. Soon the middle end will be replaced by IGP as bandwidth restrictions are lifted.

AMD is already well set on their way towards a discrete gpu-less future.

Q4 results.

AMDs CPU division -37% YoY. 829 million$ revenue.
AMDs GPU division -15% YoY. 326 million$ revenue.

ATI had chipsets too and other segments. You forget that.

 

[SiliconWars]

Q4 results.

AMDs CPU division -37% YoY. 829 million$ revenue.
AMDs GPU division -15% YoY. 326 million$ revenue.

AMD's GPU division includes more than just discrete GPU. It's the whole embedded market too (including consoles).

 

[SiliconWars]

Funny how Nvidia's GeForce division still does ~$630M/qtr (this is without the Intel royalty payment).

That doesn't include Quadro/Tesla.

We'll see how much that cratered in Q4 when they announce.

 

[mrmt]

If it can be justified then it must be ethical. Now I understand what this is really all about.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34550698&highlight=#post34550698

Yes I see the irony, in fact I was about to change it to include myself in it before your post.

Intel has ME caught in it as well, which is a good reason why I hate it so much. It was only another 10-15 bucks but I still paid for something that I didn't pay for with my Q6600, for example.

Eyefinity already stated that he hates Intel. There is no possibility of rational debate when one of the parts hates the debate subject.

 

[ShintaiDK]

AMD's GPU division includes more than just discrete GPU. It's the whole embedded market too (including consoles).

CPU division Q4 2011 1309 million $ revenue. 1 year later its down to 829 million $. And you say the future is there. :whiste:

AMDs GPU division aint much compared to the ATI days. Its sold offs and shutdowns ever since.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Eyefinity already stated that he hates Intel. There is no possibility of rational debate when one of the parts hates the debate subject.

He hates nVidia too. But again, we do have an influx of those currently 😉

 

[SiliconWars]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34550698&highlight=#post34550698



Eyefinity already stated that he hates Intel. There is no possibility of rational debate when one of the parts hates the debate subject.

Actually in this case I meant I hate the situation that Intel has forced on to the consumers, especially "enthusiasts" who attempt to justify buying Intel even though they know they are being screwed for more every year.

 

[SiliconWars]

CPU division Q4 2011 1309 million $ revenue. 1 year later its down to 829 million $. And you say the future is there. :whiste:

AMDs GPU division aint much compared to the ATI days. Its sold offs and shutdowns ever since.

As I'm sure you are well aware, there is a restructuring going on. AMD deliberately did not take almost $1/2 a billion worth of wafers last year. They could have done but would have been left with reduced prices on their current lineup instead. What good is additional revenue when COGS would have been break even?

While all the Intel fans were busy assuring us that "this is an AMD problem, not an industry problem", AMD were busy scaling down production - something that it took Intel 3 months later to realise was the prudent step.

 

[Ferzerp]

Thread topic: Is Intel too expensive

Eyefinity wants thread topic to be: AMD is great


Please stop doing this to every thread you post in. A thread is allowed to not be about how much you love AMD.

 

[SiliconWars]

Thread topic: Is Intel too expensive

Eyefinity wants thread topic to be: AMD is great


Please stop doing this to every thread you post in. A thread is allowed to not be about how much you love AMD.

Absolutely nowhere have I said AMD is great. If you're going to make stuff up at least make it somewhat valid to the situation.

The topics discussed are somewhat valid. It's about Intel being too expensive, how they got to be that way etc. If anybody started talking about AMD it's Nemesis.

 

[Idontcare]

You could apply your logic to just about anything in life and you'll always end up with somebody being harmed. If it's a choice between consumer and corporation than its a very easy choice for me. If a few people need to "suffer" (paying taxes that they already paid?) so that many more can prosper then so be it. Chances are the people who are suffering made hay while the sun was shining and they had a monopoly on the market.

AMD had fewer employees than Intel. Those fewer people at AMD suffered so that many more at Intel could prosper.

But it does appear that the people who suffered did indeed make hay.

Big Numbers for Advanced Micro's Boss: Advanced Micro Devices Inc. gave its chairman, W. Jerry Sanders III, a 73% raise last year to $2.98 million in salary and bonus, according to the Sunnyvale-based firm's proxy. Advanced Micro said Sanders also received $3.9 million in restricted stock awards last year as a result of the company's turnaround. The award brought his total holdings in the nation's sixth-largest semiconductor maker to about 1.4 million shares, valued at $30.7 million.

AMD's Sanders doubles 1999 pay with $2 million bonus

The computer chip giant says CEO Jerry Sanders, whose annual bonus is capped at $5 million, received a fiscal 2001 bonus of $1.2 million that was carried over from 2000.

Hector de J Ruiz 5-Year Compensation Total $14.01 mil

Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Chairman Hector Ruiz (right) will get a $3 million bonus if AMD’s deal to spin off its manufacturing operations to a new foundry company goes through.

Ruiz will earn $1.15 million annually as chairman of the new company, which is getting investment from the government of Abu Dhabi.

AMD revealed that it will paying its new CEO Rory Read a base salary of $1 million, the highest base salary for an AMD CEO in the company's history.

 

[SiliconWars]

You know how much Otellini gets paid right IDC? $17 million a year.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You know how much Otellini gets paid right IDC? $17 million a year.

Otellini's company isn't going down the toilet. Shareholders care little about executive salaries increasing as long as stock prices are also increasing.

 

[SiliconWars]

Otellini's company isn't going down the toilet. Shareholders care little about executive salaries increasing as long as stock prices are also increasing.

Until they are making more than 17x AMD's revenues, nobody can have a go at AMD for paying Read $1 million while Intel is paying Otellini $17 million.

 

[mrmt]

Until they are making more than 17x AMD's revenues, nobody can have a go at AMD for paying Read $1 million while Intel is paying Otellini $17 million.

Why revenues? Why you as a stakeholder would use revenue levels as a base for executive compensation? Why not more important metrics such as EBITDA, FCF or even net profits?

Oh, of course we know the reason on why you don't go for those metrics: Intel books *many* more than 17 times what AMD makes on those metrics.

 

[SiliconWars]

AMD had fewer employees than Intel. Those fewer people at AMD suffered so that many more at Intel could prosper.

This is a logical fallacy. Had Intel not unfairly abused their monopoly, AMD would have gained revenue while Intel lost revenue. AMD would have hired more workers that intel had laid off.

The end result would have been a fairer competition, more innovation and consumer benefit. The only loser would have been Intel, the corporation.

I strongly suspect all of you already realise this but are just burying your heads in the sand.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Until they are making more than 17x AMD's revenues, nobody can have a go at AMD for paying Read $1 million while Intel is paying Otellini $17 million.

Actually, that's not true.

Not only is it profit or loss that really matters, not revenues, as far as CEO performance is concerned, but a CEO that doubles profits can easily be worth 10 times his predecessor.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Until they are making more than 17x AMD's revenues, nobody can have a go at AMD for paying Read $1 million while Intel is paying Otellini $17 million.

Try looking at "net income".