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: pirasa2 who wrote (238319)	8/7/2007 6:14:58 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

They are paid shills. You're nuts. A million units is not that far-fetched at all. Yes it is. It's completely unreasonable. You don't even listen to AMD's own cheerleading execs when they tell you not to expect much in terms of volumes and revenue this year, do you? ready for drop-in upgrades This is a problem, too. Apparently, there are serious issues getting existing motherboards to work properly. The "BIOS updates" are proving more difficult than anticipated. It appears that nothing from Intel will come close to the Barc in terms of power efficiency throughout 2008. Well, that's completely wrong, too. At least you're consistent. With so many mistakes, you'll no doubt be shocked, shocked, when AMD posts huge losses in Q3 and Q4.

To: pirasa2 who wrote (238319)	8/7/2007 9:02:42 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Pirasa, > A million units is not that far-fetched at all. Considering the following: - It took Intel eight months to ship one million quad-core Xeons from its introduction ( theinquirer.net ) - It's easier to manufacture Intel's quad-core processors because it's basically two dual-cores in a package. AMD's "native quad-core" will be tough to manufacture. - Intel has more fabs than AMD. - AMD has a long history of paper-launching products and not demonstrating any volumes for months after launch. And you are expecting AMD to ship one million Barcelonas by Q4? Only if you meant Q4 2008, LOL ... Tenchusatsu

To: pirasa2 who wrote (238319)	8/7/2007 10:19:21 PM
From: graphicsguru	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

With respect to server units, be very careful how you count. Some "server" stats include towers used as shared filesystems that are neither xeons nor opterons. I don't know whether or not they still do it, but at one point Google was using immense piles of Celerons because node performance was entirely dependent on dram. When you actually limit things to Xeons and Opterons, I think the numbers are smaller than you quote. It's true that AMD is drumming about energy efficiency, but it rings hollow to me. First, the Intel G0 stepping of Woodcrest/Clovertown impressively reduces power. Second, the Hi-K dielectrics of Penryn are even more impressive. Third, when you consider performance/watt, the higher performance of Intel's parts more than makes up for the extra power in the fbdimms & MC. From a data center perspective, the relevant measure is total power per node. My measurements of Woodcrest vs. Opteron for my apps indicate about a 10% advantage for Opteron in power, but a greater than 10% performance advantage for Intel. Clovertown or Penryn vs. Barcelona only shifts things further to Intel's advantage. Note that Hector said in the recent conf call that we should not expect really significant Barcelona volume until Q1. So you are much more optimistic than he is.