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: Elmer Phud who wrote (164898)	7/13/2005 3:17:45 AM
From: KeithDust2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

ephud, and two, getting the new cores into production. At that point I don't see AMD being able to compete on any level. Don´t you think it´s a bit early for such judgement?

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (164898)	7/13/2005 5:53:16 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The key is two fold. One is that Intel will retake the server high ground in Q1 and two, getting the new cores into production. At that point I don't see AMD being able to compete on any level. About retaking server high ground you only mean that Intel will finally introduce a dual core (two die per package) Xeon (Smithfield-alike). We all know how well Smithfield performs as single chip solution. Bandwidth remains a concern especially when going up to quad socket systems until sometime in 2007 when Intel finally introduces some Hypertransport competitor (CSI). Latency remains a significant bottleneck until Intel will finally include the MC on the processor die sometime in 2007. So your remark that you don't see AMD compete on any level with regards to higher end x86 servers is somewhat laughable, or are you perhaps predicting the introduction frequency will be => 4.0GHz!?! Basically in the x86 server market Intel is behind with dual core, 64b implementation, hypertransport, mem contr on die, and power consumption, and can't imo possibly catch up until some time 2007 at the earliest. The only really significant new Intel core in production by Q1 06 is Yonah. Which will be superior to Turion performance-wise for the period of say at least 2 or 3 quarters of a year, but will be 32b only. Yonah and yonah-derivatives are likely to be popular, sure. But as they're 32b you can't possibly argue that AMD has no feature advantage (VP isn't likely to be of any importance in notebooks for a years, while 64b is growing in importance and will continue with MS releasing a 64b Windows Home edition that is expected roughly halfway through 2006). AMD is likely to be able to compete in the mobile market, just not in the T&L dual core segment of that market. So your statement that you don't see AMD compete on any level is at least exagurated. In the DTR part of that market AMD is expected to have dual core X2's in Q1 06 or a quarter later because lower voltage dual core Opteron processors are scheduled to become available by Q1 06. If you really want to maintain that AMD can't compete in any part of the desktop market I think you'll have to clearify what Intel core will outperform AMD in the majority of benchmarks on the desktop (as I clearly think there won't be any). Regards, Rink