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: aleph0 who wrote (201956)	6/13/2006 7:19:17 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"I wouldn't put it past them to do a U-turn on AMD, proclaiming that "now they've seen Conroe, they're switching" - e.g. doing an SGI." AMD has shown its mettle by causing INTC to not only eat crow on the x86 64-bit initiative by AMD but also clone AMD's products in effort to remain competitive. I doubt that this reversal of status quo has been lost on Dell. HPQ is eating Dell's lunch by its customer centric approach in offering its customer base choice, both AMD and INTC product. If Conroe is nothing more than a "large cache fraudulent benchmark" product, you can bet all OEM's, including Dell, have twigged to such a notion and are aware of the very real possibility that AMD's 65nm offerings and innovative co-processor initiative are likely to be more than competitive, and with a much smaller cache, likely a whole lot less expensive than INTC's Conroe. Bearing the foregoing scenario in mind, perhaps Dell is not so short-sighted as to blow off AMD fearing the risk of what if Conroe is just a stop gap effort by INTC with its "large cache fraudulent benchmark" feature. Again, the large wafer space required by these large INTC caches, just might become a HUGE disadvantage in terms of production costs when AMD introduces its next generation of products.

To: aleph0 who wrote (201956)	6/13/2006 7:32:44 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

aleph0 just listened to few minutes out of 1 hour DELL talk. Few bits about future multi-core multi-CPU AMD servers - nothing new. anything more - AMD got great product but short of high end servers we have no announcements for today intel - we are their biggest client and they are our biggest supplier (I would say that at this point in time intel is the only supplier) in short nothing ruled out and nothing new added I think that Dell might be on the level considering that Intel is unlikely to meet Dell's demand for conroe and going after the lowest end through p4 would not make up for it just my 2c -AK

To: aleph0 who wrote (201956)	6/13/2006 7:46:48 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

So here's INTC's problem: In Q1/06, INTC's cpu revenues declined Y/Y by $620M to $6239M from Q1/05's $6861M. That compared to AMD's Q1/06 Y/Y increase in revenues by $550M to $1299M from Q1/05's 750M. No wonder INTC's in panic mode and resorted to Draconian P4 price cutting measures and deafening Conroe hype in effort to stem the accelerating erosion! What's more, INTC is looking at a further steep decline in cpu revenues in Q2, just how much is anyone's guess, but another $200M shouldn't be too surprising to anyone...and that might be overly conservative. So far, INTC has successfully diverted attention from the heavy Q2 financial bleeding, with all the Conroe "stop-gap" hyping, but I fear that not even the daily dose of deafening Conroe hyperbole by our thread trio will be able to mask the rapidly deteriorating INTC financials a month away. Somehow, I'm beginning to sense that INTC has painted itself into a corner by relying on ever-larger caches, and the corresponding larger wafer space, required to increase performance. If I'm right that AMD's next generation is half the size of INTC's huge cache Conroes and equal or better performance, then INTC can not only kiss its monopoly status goodbye but also find itself relegated to the lesser player in a duopoly.

To: aleph0 who wrote (201956)	6/14/2006 10:08:33 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Phil, I'm convinced that the whole CONroe benchmarking fiasco had a sole purpose to prop-up Intel's share price and hold off potential migration to AMD platforms. I am not sure what you are referring to as fiasco, whether you think that Conroe performance is real or the timing and all of the leaks and pre-announcements. I find all of the hype about Conroe way before it ships questionable, but the benchmarks are, I believe, substantially correct. There may be some problems found on the margins, but most of it is right, IMO. AMD will have a much tougher competitor in the near future. Joe