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: paarl99 who wrote (201242)	6/8/2006 10:19:43 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Am I wrong to expect intc revenue for Q2 and Q3 to be in the sewer??" You forgot Q4 and possibly Q107.

To: paarl99 who wrote (201242)	6/8/2006 11:04:26 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

Core2 is supposed to be 30% leaving Q4, and I suspect Intel is sandbagging.

To: paarl99 who wrote (201242)	6/8/2006 11:59:19 PM
From: hammerfall_prophet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>Am I wrong to expect intc revenue for Q2 and Q3 to be in the sewer?? Quite correct; last Q Intel declared their gross margins at less than 50%. A 60% cut means selling at a loss. >ALso...are these new Evaluations of MCW by Anandtech valuable?? Is is paid for FUD?? I don't usually quote sharikou, but his criticism of anandtech's SQL benchmarking seems to be on the level: There appears to be a known bug with the version of SQL anand used in Gentoo in multi-core systems, which results in performance going backwards with the number of cpu cores. >This is all very entertaining and costly but WTF is going on ?? Intel had no options, really. Let us consider an alternative scenario: Instead of lowering prices, Intel could raise prices, cut back production, let AMD capture more mkt share, but at the same time make more money with which to fight the next battle. Unfortunately, Intel had too many production problems this year and in 2005 (I presume because of the lack of SOI, but probably also due to copying mistakes exactly); and those production problems translated as increased width in the yield curve: To produce a few parts with high clocks, thousands of lower clocking parts are produced. Intel tried to push the lower clocking parts' glut onto the channel (after stuffing its own inventory to the max), as well as onto OEM's; but then OEM's began to try and get rid of those unwanted parts by dumping them into the channel. If Intel chose to raise prices, they would have to literally wait for the channel to clear before being able to sell any parts at all. Besides, it would cause an inversion of the pricing scale. They've been cutting prices on Xeons to try to keep the server mkt, so to raise prices on desktop cpu's would cause the market to buy Xeons for desktops. At the same time, their loss of control of their distributors increases the apparent desirability of AMD cpu's, while the cancellation of discounts (apparently retroactive) has driven large numbers of their distributors to file bankruptcies; specially in the Middle East. Not to mention that their price cuts also curtails the value of inventories held by distributors... >Also...how much can AMD shift mix to Opterons to evade price competition in desk top sector?? I believe it takes about a month from the time you make a switch in production quantities until it materializes at the output end. Probably not much in terms of cost.