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: Dan3 who wrote (193782)	4/15/2006 3:10:31 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> You might note that AMD CPU revenue was up about 100% Y on Y, from a year ago. It explains quite a bit. That's a very good observation. let's see how it computes. First, let's find the actual increase in AMD units. Was the increase y/y 100% or a big number, but not quite 100% ? Here is a reference: AMD's top-line results represent a 71% increase from a year earlier, excluding contributions from Spansion. thestreet.com ------------ So I'll use 70%, which means AMD accounts for$500m extra CPU rev than in q1 '05. let's say that equates to 5.3 m chips. But the growth in total PC's y/y 2005/2004 was 15.5%. I don't know how the quarterly distrib went. The easiest assumption is linear. So I'll use q1 2006 / q1 2005 was 15.5% higher. That will be 46m x 15.5% = 7 m units. Intel's unit increase = total increase - AMD increase Intel's = 7.1 - 5.3 = 1.8 m chips. So your assertion :"You might note that AMD CPU revenue was up about 100% Y on Y, from a year ago. It explains quite a bit." is very correct. But the part that is left over after "quite a bit" is accounted for is what tells me Intel's units also increased. And since they did not come from current production, they must have come from inventory reduction at distributors or white box builders or OEM's.