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: Klink who wrote (218193)	11/30/2006 4:02:14 PM
From: NicoV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Servers are the future Servers are about TCO, not about raw performance. A good TCO is based on decent performance, decent power consumption and a decent price. 20% peformance difference is irrelevant. The only place where getting the absolute top performance is important from a TCO perspective is software priced per CPU, like Oracle (and an Oracle license costs much more than the CPU it will run on). But that's a small part of the server market. I recently looked up the price for a mid range server to do performance tests for the product I'm working on. Thanks to Dell, it's now very easy to make accurate comparisons of what AMD systems cost versus Intel systems. An AMD system (2.6 GHz dual processor dual core) was about 3000 euro, the Intel system (2.6 GHz dual processor Core 2) was about 4500 euro. The Core 2 system will no doubt be somewhat faster, but not enough to nearly warrant the cost difference. This is why I think AMD will do better than INTC in the server market. So long as there is a need for more and more computing power, CPUs will never become commoditized Where do you see this need for more and more computing power? I'm running Windows Vista and Visual Studio on a 3 year old 2GHz Athlon 64 and can barely notice the difference with my new E6600 system. I just gave the old system an upgrade to 2GB RAM and an 7600GS video card. But buying a completely new system to get 20 or 30% more performance that will most likely not be noticable is not economic. mention the exteme barriers to entry in CPU production I didn't say that there would be new CPU producers. Maybe you are happy with your Commodore 64. Haven't used it in 20 years. I've probably bought more than 10 CPU's in the last 5 years for my own PCs, but I don't buy CPU's that cost 50% more for 10% more performance (like the E6700 for instance).