Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (41483)	5/29/2001 12:17:00 AM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tony, Re:The way end users use these servers in a typical application is: 1-2 ways as web servers; 4-ways as application servers; 8 ways as database servers. The 1-2 ways won't serve well in the other 2 apps, so end users use the 4s and 8s there, making demand for the big cache Xeons. That's utter rubbish. Also, didn't Intel just introduce 1-2 way "P4" Xeon systems? Doug

To: Tony Viola who wrote (41483)	5/29/2001 1:49:13 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

Tony, The components are different. The 2 ways use PIIIs, the 4 and 8 ways use big cache Xeons. There is no other supplier than Intel for the latter. So, they charge more for it. There are some 2-way Xeon machine, and during the 9 month or so delay of Cascades, Xeon was basically Piii. Intel continues to sell Xeons that have only 256k of memory. The outside world couldn't care less about the distinction between Xeon and Piii, other than size of the cache. Is Xeon still using the archaic Slot 2, or did they move to socket? Anyway, the numbers that I posted in my other post (about unit percentage of Intel chips that will now be facing competition from AMD) should go up from I believe 70% to a higher number, based on the information that you provided to me, that the 4 and 8 way servers, (just like 2 say servers) are not always fully populated with processors. In my calculations, I used 1.5 as the number of processors that go into 2 way servers, but did not use the same reduction for 4 and 8 way servers. Based on a quick recalculation I think the number of server chips that will face competition from AMD will be over 82%, while the percentage not facing AMD competition will over 17%. So basically, at the end of Q1, Intel still had about 20% of market (notebooks) and 10% (servers) all to itself, and these segments generated the majority of profits. At the end of say Q3, the notebooks will face competition from AMD and Transmeta, so the 20% of the marke associated with notebooks will no longer be subject to monopoly prices and profits, and only 17% of the 10% (servers), or 1.7% of overall units will continue to be subject to monopoly prices. 30% monopoly prices to 1.7%. I am a bit behind on the Intel thread, but I wouldn't expect any Intel investor to go through this kind of exercise. I think it is worth considering. And I am not saying this from the point of view tha AMD will make a killing. AMD has an unrealistic expectations about the prices and this is just postponing the inevitable. Once AMD realizes that to gain market share, the premium (over desktop) has to disappear, the fun will start. I will watch it, most likely from the sidelines. Joe