Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
[it/s] difficult to predict exactly how much trouble AMD really is in
How high's the water Hector ?
Five feet high and risin'
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/fivefeethighandrising.html
Next after Penryn: Six feet high and drownin'
You are spot on with the graphics processor application. But the product cost for one die per wafer will need to come down a bit gaming use
"Intel is trying to bring this research project to market to deliver teraflops of performance in high throughput performance.... [T]his kind of chip will be useful in ray-tracing (graphics), computer vision, physical simulation and analytics."
From the Takahashi article:
"[Held] said that Intel has experimented with creating a huge chip that can handle 1.01 teraflops at 62 watts and it would show the working chip off at tonights expo. The chip has 100 million transistors and 80 cores built in a 65 nm process."
The Intel teraflop chip apparently has more functionality than Barfolounger but the real question is will it run Task Manager ?
It seems that Intel is transferring all of its flash memory activites to NewCo, including specifically the Phase change memory technology.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070522corp.htm?iid=pr1_releasepri_20070522r
"The integration of STMicroelectronics' and Intel's parallel programs on phase-change memory, a key technology capability, will also help to bring the benefits of advanced flash memory technology to potential customers more quickly and efficiently."
The AMD performance game reminds me of the con man with 3 shells and a pea.
The difference is that the shell-game con man gives a more polished demonstration.
Thanks for a very enlightening history lesson.
Does ADT mean Alpha Development Team ?
Can you give a quick sketch of what the civil war was about ?
The Quack FX struts its stuff
http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/04/26/power_supply_matchup/page2.html
...the CPU under load, the Quadfather jumped back up to a whopping 840 watts. We ran a Windows power management test on the system, which set off the Quadfather's heat alarms as one of the CPU's temperatures rose to 160 degrees Fahrenheit; the second CPU soon crept over 100 degrees. However, it turns out the Quadfather's massive exhaust ports were positioned too close to a nearby wall, causing hot air to be blown back into the system. With proper ventilation, the Quadfather avoided overheating during testing and gameplay.
How will AMAT ensure that Intel's process development design doesn't get leaked to the AMD business units?
Intel will help with the non-disclosure procedure by denying AMAT engineers access to its development fabs. AMAT can then -- what they call in the legal arena -- "go pound sand".
Can anyone spot the oxymoron?
It ain't an oxymoron. It's a deception bordering on fraud.
Note that AMD adds an "at the same frequency" qualifier to its performance claim. The top frequency expected for AMD of about 2.5 GHz and the expected frequency in H2 for Intel of about 3.0 GHz are not the same.
So AMD is actually comparing its best speed Barfolona with an Intel Clovertown that is several speed bins down from the top.
AMD is always very good at making deceptive comparisons by using sneaky qualifiers. The fact that AMD estimates performance instead of measuring performance introduces another huge fudge factor.
AMD was asked about a pending private equity deal and they gave a non-answer. Something like: We are alway ready to consider anything that is good for our shareholders if and when it arises.
There was no comment on whether an equity deal is in the works.
Henri: quantities of Barfolona available at launch. We don't do soft launches (very firm voice tone) !
E*Trade shows last trade of $15.08 AT 5:57 ASTOUNDING !!
Perhaps hello Dresden, goodby Austin and Sunnyvale.
Hector said the "plan" review will consider all kinds of things including should the whole business be headquartered someplace outside the United States.
I heard it as "market share". It triggered the "30% share is what we need claim" in my mind.
Henri says they will get back to the market share that AMD deserves.
How does a company obtain a deserved market share? Is that defined in the 5 year Communist plan?
The License Agreement that you cite says that all patents filed within the Capture Period of the 10th anniversary of the Agreement. Patents filed more than 10 years after the start of the License will not start to become patents until 2 to 3 years after the 10th anniversary.
The practical effect is that the License provides patent peace for 10 years until January 1, 2011 plus the several years it will take for AMD and Intel to reload their arsenal of patents.
Any new Agreement that replaces or significantly changes this Agreement would require another SEC filing by AMD. So what you see is what you get.
And I thought that I was one of the very few that had never heard of this beastie.
Strike 3 for AMD hypocrisy on benchmarking
Check out the charts in the link for a graphic that speaks louder than any words.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=463
AMD swung hard at Intel for what it deemed as ethics violations, but since then, it has pulled the same stunt it's been criticizing Intel for three times in a row. I called out AMD's hypocrisy on strike one; David Berlind called it out on strike two; and now AMD is doing the same thing by cherry-picking the benchmarks and omitting superior Intel scores. Intel's Nick Knuppffer was rather upset with these omissions today and called AMD's benchmark postings "rubbish."
AMD, in this latest round, showed three sets of benchmarks comparing three products. It shows the latest AMD Opteron 2222 SE, which was released only this month, going against an Intel 5160 from mid-2006 and against an Intel 5355 released November 2006. The problem is that AMD omits the scores on two of the benchmarks and shows only the Intel 5355 in its worst light with SPECompMbase2001, which is a relatively obscure and less often cited benchmark to begin with. AMD selectively omits Intel's 5355 numbers for the more common SPECint_rate2006 and SPECfp_rate2006 benchmarks and then claims victory on all three sets of benchmarks. Here is the chart reconstructed with the best available scores posted by AMD, but I've also included the omitted 5355 scores highlighted in yellow.
There is no indication what the Dell "accounting" issues involve. The class action never states what the accounting issue involve either. It just brings the Intel payments issue over from the AMD antitrust suit and states they exist. The class action borrows from the AMD complaint to add some sizzle and to make it seem that "something" is wrong.
The accounting for an Intel payment is prretty easy whether it is a volume discount, advertising support, loyalty payment or whatever. The term "bribe" is nothing more than a pejorative thrown around by Droids and idiot journalists. AMD has never to my knowledge used the term "bribe". It is too far over the top.
All you do is throw the payment in the bank account, book it as revenue and it falls straight to the bottom line. Or maybe it is a discount and it reduces expenses. But the result is the same: a dollar for dollar increase in earnings.
Eventually we will find out the nature of the accounting issue when Dell files its late financial report and explains the accounting issue. Until then about all that is known is that it is very unlikely that it has anything to do with Intel payments.
AMD Provides Customer Centric Blue Screen Of Death !
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2109559,00.asp
Looking to boost your system's performance? A driver upgrade is often a great way to do it, but in the case of AMD's new Catalyst 7.3 driver package for Radeon graphics cards and Windows Vista, you might want to hold off before you take the plunge unless you enjoy gazing at blue screens with white lettering. It's another case of driver woes with the new operating system.
The new Catalyst drivers, released March 28, in rare cases, have a problem with Windows Vista that causes the notorious blue screen of death (a blue screen with white, which indicates that Windows has run into a serious, show-stopping problem). If you frequent message boards of PC and gaming enthusiast sites such as those at Rage3D, HardOCP and DriverHeaven, you may have seen everything from level-headed problem reports to flames full of foaming rage over the problem. Chris Catt, a forum poster, notes, "I am not angry about this, it happens, but ATI should know better."
Intel's Pain Machine
http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/03/28/intel-penryn-nehalem-tech_cx_bc_0328intel.html
Intel calls it its "tick-tock" strategy. It could also be described as a plan for dishing up an annual dose of pain to competitor Advanced Micro Devices.
In a briefing with reporters Wednesday, the chipmaker introduced a new design for its lineup of processors, dubbed Nehalem, and offered new details on the so-called Penryn line of chips it will introduce during the second half of this year. Pat Gelsinger, general manager of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group, described Nehalem as the biggest change to the way Intel builds chips in more than a decade, comparing it to the shift Intel made in the mid-1990s to the Pentium Pro design.
Nehalem is part of Intel's so-called "tick-tock" strategy for cranking keeping the pressure on rival AMD by focusing its manufacturing might and research and development efforts on revamping its lineup of processors each year.
With each tick, Intel plans to take advantage of updates to its manufacturing processes to, for example, squeeze more transistors into each piece of silicon, as it will with Penryn this year. Intel will roll out six Penryn processors for laptop, desktop and server markets under its Core 2 and Xeon brands that will pack more transistors into each processor by shrinking their size to 45 nanometers from 64 nanometers today. Intel promises this will up their performance without increasing their consumption of power.
Each "tock" represents a new design for its lineup of chips, represented by Intel's Nehalem architecture. Nehalem will allow Intel to squeeze as many as eight cores--or computer "brains"--onto each slice of silicon next year. Among other benefits, more cores will allow computers to tackle more tasks at the same time. Multiple cores would allow a user to edit a PowerPoint presentation in one window while watching a movie in another without slowing down a computer's performance. Moreover, Intel claims each core will be able to perform two tasks at the same time.
IF Intel can achieve world class yields
Do black bears live in the woods ?
IF wafer cost comes in at ~$2500
Is a pig's butt pork ?
</snark>
The strength of the upcoming transitions for the 45nm process and the Penryn design were a big question in my mind. If the transitions were OK then the Intel competitive advantage would remain about the same as today. If the transitions were good then Intel would pull ahead a bit.
Intel's recent poor past performance -- before C2D -- left me with a "wait and see" mind set. Early signs were promising. Today's news shouts that the Intel of Andy Grove is back and Intel will have a GREAT leap forward.
AMD is gonna be road kill.
So what is a Super Shuffle. It sounds like something that a black jack dealer in Las Vegas does when he spots a card counter.
Got any examples of extreme bias or venom in the thread from me yet?
Start with this snarky email and work backward through each of your emails. All will qualify.
It is not clear yet what did happen. AMD understands that and said in its Status Conference Statement filed before the status conference that "the facts are not yet fully available" (paraphrased).
What was stated was that some executives and perhaps others thought that the IT group was saving their emails but this was not the case. Unstated but likely, the emails were deleted with the timed purge.
Another stated situation was that emails in the Sent folder were not manually saved while the Inbox and related Folders were saved.
A third situation was that the Munich office wrote over an email backup tape instead of preserving the backup tape as instructed. The accidental over write of critcal data has happened to just about everyone -- companies and individuals alike.
Given the massive complexity of Intel's email retention program it is not surprising that Intel experienced errors. It is also guaranteed that AMD has some email retention problems that it does not yet know about.
The counselors look at what they discover and deem to be relevant material. They present it to the Master,
Absolutely false.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Lesson 2:
The Special Master rules on discovery motions filed by the parties. A decision of the Master can be appealed to the Judge. The concept is to relieve the Judge of hearing a bunch of routine discovery motions that are do not go to the merits of the case.
The Judge can also refer special matters to the Master such as a request to investigate the Intel email situation and issue a report on what happened.
Get it?
Obviously you do not "get it". Your statements are superficial at best.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. And in your case a VERY dangerous thing.
What about 5th amendment rights?
The antitrust case AMD asserts against Intel is a civil case, not a criminal case. The right against self incrimination only applies for criminal matters.
Why must Intel give all emails to AMD showing internal workings?
The discovery process in a civil case allows one party to ask the other for all sorts of documents, emails, drawings, business plans and live testimony that may reasonably lead to the discovery of evidence for the law suit. The scope of discovery is very broad particularly in something as far reaching as an antitrust case.
The discovery concept is good in theory because it allows a party to gather information and avoid surprises. In practice, discovery is often abused and used as a weapon. Europe uses a much more reasonable discovery practice and thinks -- rightly -- that US discovery practice is crazy.
Does Intel get to see all internal emails between all AMD executives?
Yes. Discovery requests go both ways. The only limit is that the request is supposed to be "reasonable" as described above.
Discovery is also allowed for third parties by issuing a subpoena but it is much more limited in scope. The law requires that a person respond to a subpoena by supplying the material requested or going to court to challenge the subpoena.
AMD often issued a press release that third parties had agreed to provide EVIDENCE for the law suit. What really happened was that a party agreed to supply material as described in the subpoena or as described in a more limited request negotiated with AMD.
The material may or may not have risen to the level of evidence. AMD's inference that a party was "cooperating" and that the material was evidence establishing an AMD claim was a total exaggeration.
Does each company get to see all plans, roadmaps, schedules, future products, capitol spending etc simply by filing suit for frivolous reasons?
If a law suit is truly frivolous it can be dismissed before discovery takes place. There are lots of bullsh*t claims that are not frivolous. The legal standard for a "frivolous" claim is much more strict than the common usage for a "low probability of success" claim.
Is this a free pass to know everything about your competitor and what their competitive plans are?
Confidential material including technology, agreements and competitive material is subject to discovery but will be produced under a Protective Order issued by the court. The protective order limits the use of the confidential material to the prosecution of the law suit and limits the persons who can access the material. Typically, lawyers and outside experts are allowed to access the protected material. Employees other than some in-house lawyers are not allowed access, with rare exceptions.
Intel's problem is it is treating this as simply a legal issue.
Intel should treat this as a legal issue because it is indeed a legal issue -- no sarcasm meant. The best practice in a legal contest is to say nothing until eventually you have your day in court. Any thing you say before then can and often will cause problems.
It is hard to remain silent when the mud is getting tossed but it is the best thing to do.
I think the damage to Intel as a result of the email situation and AMD complaining has been relatively minor. Most casual observers just think that it is part of the AMD/Intel pissing contest.
The Droids are having a field day distorting the situation but they were part of the "Intel is evil" crowd even before the current turmoil. To understand that norm remember that one famous Droid once compared Intel to an anthrax terrorist.
Here is the accepted standard for a contest in the legal arena. If the law is against you then argue the facts. If the facts are against you then argue the law. If the law and the facts are against you then pound the table.
Right now, AMD is doing a lot of table pounding.
Major law firms bill young associates at $300 an hour and up. These were partners who are billed at $500 an hour up to as much as $800 an hour.
The European Comission denied a first staff request to initiate an action against Intel about a year ago. The staff tried again with a second request the end of last year. After several months, the EC has not yet decided to start an action against Intel.
The longer that the EC sits on the second request the less likely that they will take action against Intel. My SWAG is that the EC will sit and watch the activity in the U.S. law suit for now and wait for a result. The FTC is taking that approach after investigating Intel for all of the 90's and into the early 2000's.
You are getting very close to the AMD theme <VBG>
The original theme for AMD was that because of anti-competitive acts of Intel we can't sell our superior processors and gain more market share. Since the filing of the suit, AMD has increased market share and obtained entry into Dell.
Now that AMD has increased market share, the argument that Intel prevents us from selling stuff gets a little weak. It seems that AMD -- through its lawyers -- is offering a slightly different theme that yes we can cell our superior processors but the anti-competitive conduct of Intel prevents us from selling the even more product needed to reach the 30% required for a viable business.
Put another way, the original AMD theme implied that "we are doing well but we would do better if it wasn't for big bad Intel." Now that AMD is doing a bit better with increased market share the position is that "the correct amount of "better" is 30% or we can't make money".
The goal of 30% market share has been around since the days of Jerry "Where's Mine" Sanders. However, the position that 30% share is required for success is brand new.
I share the Duke's view that this is a lawyer crafted position. When I first read Hector's statement a big red light flashed and a siren sounded "lawyer speak".
It is likely that Anand Krishnaswamy will soon be a former Intel employee.
The AMD stereo salesman can not even lie effectively.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=438&tag=nl.e539
Is AMD being hypocritical about benchmark ethics?
So here we have AMD’s Richard screaming about Intel’s use of older stats from the previous SPECint standard which shows Intel killing AMD by a large margin, then promises not to do the same thing, then goes right on ahead and offers one month old stats showing AMD’s 3% lead on SPECint_2006. Would that be a problem if nothing has changed since that time? No, nothing wrong at all. But I checked with CPU analyst David Kanter of Real World technologies and here’s what he has to say:
In January, AMD lead Intel by about 3% in SPECint_rate 2006; currently, Intel has pulled ahead by around 6%.
SPECint_2006 best scores as of Feb 2007
Dual core processor________ Base Peak
Intel XEON 5160___________ 53.2 55.2
AMD Opteron Model 2220___ 46.1 51.7
So right now, Intel beats AMD on SPECint_rate for both peak and base.
So we have AMD screaming about Intel’s misleading benchmarks, promises not to do same thing, then appears to turn around gives us outdated scores from a month earlier showing a small AMD advantage when the updated scores actually showed a larger advantage for Intel.