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: eracer who wrote (195110)	4/26/2006 1:58:36 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

eracer, Intel claimed they shipped 5 million 65-nm dual-core CPUs across all lines in Q1 which wouldn't include any of the 65-nm Core Solo or Cedarmill CPU. I bet AMD would love to have 65-nm production "problems" like that right now. Intel has plentiful capacity, and has had very high ASPs. Using surplus capacity to start production on less than mature process technology therefore is an option for Intel. Whether or not it is a case now with 65nm (having low yields), I don't know, but it is possible. Joe

To: eracer who wrote (195110)	4/26/2006 2:50:52 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

re: Then Turion X2 is pointless and will hurt AMD's margins by introducing a bloated dual-core CPU into a market that doesn't care? I didn't say that, dual core is just a performance feature, not a whole separate market. Most users will evaluate it as better for some things, no different for others. The high ASP's for DC Yonah were initially because Intel overestimated their Core Duo marketing prowess (a common failing under Otellini), and later because Intel couldn't make enough to satisfy a lower price point anyway. Actually, if AMD attempted to sell more than 20% of their Turions as dual core, I think it would hurt their margins. Not because the silicon cost is so high, but because of limited demand for DC notebook CPUs and limited (for a while) production capacity. <<My point is that Intel had the superior product for 5 months from their theoretical launch date...and lost both market share and ASP>> So Yonah launched October 31st now instead of January (in Apples) and February in PCs? I guess the rest of the world missed that news. As I explained, I'm counting April and May as months that Intel will continue to lose market share in notebooks. Do you doubt this? Intel claimed they shipped 5 million 65-nm dual-core CPUs across all lines in Q1 which wouldn't include any of the 65-nm Core Solo or Cedarmill CPU. I bet AMD would love to have 65-nm production "problems" like that right now. More proof that Yonah CPU output was a small fraction of that! Else, they would have bragged about it, and the fact that they gained market share in notebooks. SOmehow, I don't remember hearing that, do you? And Intel DID admit that those dual core 65nm CPUs were difficult to manufacture and resulted in lower gross margins. Petz