SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Joseph Pareti who wrote (150729)12/2/2001 1:21:20 PM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Any thought on this ?

Even in good times, AMD only makes money when Intel is capacity constrained. Times aren't good and soon Intel won't be capacity constrained. Their poor yields hold back what should be a significant cost advantage. AMD's shot their .13u wad with their 70nm transistors, their processors aren't scaling well anymore and no major OEMs carry them save a few token systems. Their next generation processor is experiencing delay after delay and has no pledged customers. AMD is sniffing around for foundry help which can only lower performance, increase costs and brighten the color of the red ink. Flash is a generation or more behind the competition and their technology partner is floundering and closing fabs. AMD is losing money hand over fist and there's no end in sight except in the dreams of the Dans and NiceGuys of this world.

Jerry's a liar, plain and simple. What more do we need to say?

EP



To: Joseph Pareti who wrote (150729)12/2/2001 2:05:08 PM
From: wanna_bmw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Joseph, Re: "while microprocessors' unit shipment in 2001 is down x% AMD's shipment is flat to nominally up measured in terms of y-to-y unit shipments . This gives us for the first time double digit m/s (dollar?) growth. And hence I can hardly wait till the business gets good"

Double digit growth? Hardly.

If we assume we are talking about unit market share, AMD's share at the end of 2000 was 17%. They would have to have 27% or greater at the end of Q4 to make the statement true. They are at 21% right now. Want to calculate the odds of AMD gaining 6% in market share? Intel may have a shortage, but it's certainly not going to let AMD gain 2.1 million more units at Intel's expense (6% of 35 million processors per quarter).

If we are talking about dollar market share, that's even harder to believe. AMD's ASPs at the end of 2000 were $95 for K7, and that was when they were selling Athlons for >$300. I doubt they have more Athlon XP units than the high end Athlons at the end of last year not only to account for reaching the same ASP, but surpassing it by double digits.

Like Elmer said, Jerry's a liar, plain and simple. We'll wait for proof at the end of this quarter before making it official though. But one thing is for sure - if AMD does gain double digits in market share (unit or $), I'd have to give them far more credit. I just don't think it's possible, and Jerry was probably speaking out of his a$$, as usual.

wbmw



To: Joseph Pareti who wrote (150729)12/2/2001 2:57:13 PM
From: Tony Viola  Respond to of 186894
 
Joe,

"while microprocessors' unit shipment in 2001 is down x% AMD's shipment is flat to nominally up measured in terms of y-to-y unit shipments . This gives us for the first time double digit m/s (dollar?) growth. And hence I can hardly wait till the business gets good"

>>Any thought on this ?


The first half of this year was as good as it gets, or is going to get for AMD. They had their best X86 µP ever up against the P4 with unpopular and expensive RDRAM and an aging PIII. Now and through next year, it's parity at best with regard to performance for AMD; they probably are actually at disadvantage most of the time with their Thoroughbred vs. Northwood with DDR, a much more popular, good performing and reasonably priced DRAM. So, if PCs do increase in sales next year, AMD may do OK but I believe Intel does better.

Tony