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.
And why doesn't the market agree?
The Inq also doesn't get that they are preparing for another speedgrade, and also for Rev F / 1207 parts.
That's what a good investment is about. Seeing something before others see it.
Exactly. But I want to know *what* it is that he thinks he sees. That is, how much of what (little) he said to advocate for SGI stock should already be taken into account by "the herd"?
Well, Keith, I think we'll see 2.6GHz DC Rev E parts in Feb (non-SE), and probably at least an SE 2.8GHz DC Rev F when Bensley launches. As for "not counting them", well, then you shouldn't count any Bensley requiring more than 95W TDP (incl memory controller) either.
Rev F / SiGe may allow 2.8 DC non-SE by April, if not, certainly soon enough. May even get to 3.0GHz DC on 90nm with it, perhaps only in SE / FX forms.
The three new participants are expected to introduce new platforms to be sold under the VSP banner later this quarter in North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America.
I guess Rev F / 1207 will be "introduced" later this Q, presumably at CeBIT in March.
Socket 1207 / Rev F may allow additional cHT links per processor. Also, it will support faster HT speeds (as much as 40% increase), which may benefit 8-socket more than 4.
It was neither a very compelling nor comprehensive argument for SGI as an investment. Why does the market not see what you think you see? Why has no one acquired SGI if it so undervalued?
Weren't you also buying SGI shares at $1, and even at $2?
Time to cash in at the shareholders expense.
As a shareholder, I'm happy he's paying off debt with an interest rate of nearly 8%.
Just as I'm happy that the other $500M debt will convert to shares on Feb 6, and leave the books.
As Biomaven@SI pointed out, book value per share will *increase* as a result of this transaction.
Hector must figure this is as good as it gets.
No, he's figures it is a good time, and the resultant improvement in the company's books will likely attract new investors. Why wait around paying $50M/yr in interest, and have crappy credit?
In a few weeks, LT debt & cap lease will fall from $1370M to $660M.
And cash & equiv will increase to nearly $2070M from $1800M.
Maybe, but they also have just under $1/sh of debt. :)
That's all you got? "Cray got a pop from their earnings, so..." ?
Turdion You mean this?
Once Bensley launches, Intel servers will not have a performance disadvantage,
Wrong. You're comparing Bensley to the 2.4GHz DC Rev E Opteron platform. AMD will have 2.8GHz DC Rev F parts when Bensley launches, with faster HT, etc.
As for MP, Tulsa will launch this year
Okay, and as everyone knows, Tulsa is a 175W F-ing netburst joke, so...
LOL! Yup, that's what s/he'd say.
So why is SGI stock continuing to plummet?
Can you make a business case for buying it?
They've got ~250M in debt, market cap of ~80M.
When are they going to return to profitability? Why? And why doesn't the rest of the market see it?
Why is no one acquiring them?
If you can make a strong enough case, I'll consider an investment.
People want x86. Software. Remember the software. Install base. Think.
Benchmarks don't pay the bills.
Site requires registration. Text:
AMD starts ramping Fab36
Monday, 23 January 2006
During AMD's financial analyst conference call Hector Ruiz, AMD's Chairman, President and CEO, reiterated that Fab36 its first 300mm fab will start shipping microprocessors in volume as planned, beginning in the first quarter 06.The yields he noted were now approaching those achieved at Fab30, its 200mm fab that is at full capacity producing its complete range of microprocessors. The devices being fabricated at Fab36 use AMD's 65nm process but on 90nm design rules to assist in a fast ramp with high yields.
Recently, the company signed a new supply contract for SOI wafers that are used for all its IC's at both fabs that tripled in value from the previous year. AMD used a minimum of $50 million dollars worth of 200mm SOI wafers for Fab30 in 2005, while the new contract is worth a minimum of $150 million it can be assumed the much of the $100 million deal is related to 300mm wafers. This also indicates that AMD remains on track to ramp Fab36 as aggressively as Ruiz stated to the press at the fab opening late last year.
--------------------------
Any comments on the bold part, combjelly, et al.?
Whatever floats your boat.
How're those INTC and SGI investments working out, Paul? You can find both of them in the discount bin these days, I hear.
The linkage is that ISS is expanding upwards, taking over the BCS segment.
LOL. You meant to say, "Intel needs only one new microarchitecture." The "x86" part was redundant.
I know that YOU already realize that IPF is doomed, but I think it's important that anyone thinking of wasting corporate $$$ on an IPF system be alerted to the fact in time to avoid the mistake.
IPF is another dead-end Alpha.
No, just another employee in denial :)
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2538350
Customers don't buy geometry, they buy based on performance, power, and price. As it happens, AMD's 90nm parts outperform Intel's current 65nm parts, just as AMD's 130nm parts outperformed Intel's 90nm parts.
You do understand that CPU design matters, in addition to process geometry, right?
Yep. http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~103376,00.html
Tokyo District Court Denies Intel K.K. Argument To Keep Evidence Obtained By JFTC Of Illegal Business Practices From The Public Record
Fair Trade Commission of Japan to Turn Over Evidence Collected In Its Investigation of Intel K.K. By March 17, 2006
TOKYO, Japan -- December 16, 2005 --Tokyo District Court today required the disclosure of evidence collected by the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) during its investigation of Intel K.K. (“Intel”) for violating the country’s Antimonopoly Act. The evidence, discovered in raids of Intel K.K. offices as well as major Japanese OEM manufacturers in April, 2004, formed the basis of the JFTC’s Recommendation against Intel. Legal counsel for AMD Japan intend to use the JFTC’s evidence as part of its law suit against Intel in Japan, filed June 30th, 2005.(AMD Japan v. Intel K.K.).
The ruling was issued at the conclusion of a hearing in which counsel for both AMD Japan and Intel addressed the production of documents collected by the JFTC during its year-long investigation into Intel for violating Japan’s Antimonopoly Act.
“Today’s court ruling sends the message that the truth about Intel’s illegal monopoly abuse will soon see the light of day,” said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. “We thank the court for its sound decision, and we believe that it sends a clear message worldwide that Intel cannot hope to hide the truth about its anti-competitive business practices any longer; not from the law or from consumers everywhere who deserve to know the facts. We believe the JFTC’s evidence will show what people inside our industry already know well – that Intel abuses its monopoly position to threaten and intimidate OEMs not to do business with AMD.”
McCoy continued, “What’s at stake is the future of computing in a world economy that grows more dependent on microprocessors daily. Consumers across the globe are being harmed by Intel's abusive monopoly- preservation tactics through higher prices, stifled innovation and reduced choice.”
The JFTC Recommendation Against Intel
On March 8, 2005, the JFTC found that Intel abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, violating Section 3 of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. The findings revealed that Intel used coercive, illegal tactics to stop AMD’s growing success and increasing market share, which reached 22% in 2002, by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers (which sell notebook and desktop computers to customers around the world).
The JFTC Recommendation was the culmination of an 11-month investigation that has established patterns of anti-consumer and anti-competitive behavior. The commission found that, because of AMD’s inroads into Intel’s market share, Intel deliberately set out to artificially limit AMD by imposing conditions on five Japanese manufacturers (later revealed to be NEC Corp., Toshiba Corp., Hitachi Ltd., Sony Corp., and Fujitsu, Ltd.) that together represented 77% of all CPUs sold in Japan. Specifically, the JFTC found that:
* One manufacturer was coerced to buy 100% of its CPUs from Intel; another manufacturer was forced to curtail its non-Intel purchases to 10% or less;
* Intel separately conditioned rebates on the exclusive use of Intel CPUs throughout an entire series of computers sold under a single brand name in order to exclude AMD CPUs from distribution;
* The mechanisms used to achieve these ends included rebates and marketing practices that includes the “Intel Inside” program and market development funds provided through Intel’s corporate parent in the United States.
The Recommendation noted that Intel imposed these restrictions in direct response to AMD’s growing market share from 2000-2002. The Recommendation also noted that as a result of this misconduct, the combined market share of AMD and a second, much smaller CPU company fell from 24% in 2002 to 11% in 2003.
The JFTC imposed a number of restrictions on Intel. Among them, it must notify its customers and educate its employees that it may no longer provide rebates and other funds to Japanese computer manufacturers on conditions that exclude competitors’ CPUs.
The investigations into Intel’s business practices by the European Commission and the Fair Trade Commission of Korea for violations similar to those found in Japan by the JFTC remain ongoing.
If AMD's technology was so darn superior then why didn't take a year ago??
I don't think you read the post to which you replied.
They'd had the latter for some time. The former made it possible for OEMs to use it without illegal reprisals from Intel.
Elmer! The guy who claimed:
- Intel wasn't losing money on flash.
- AMD would soon return to $10.
- AMD's yields were terrible.
- That he didn't "work" for Intel.
- It was okay for him to trade in Intel and AMD despite his extensive insider information regarding Intel.
and is regularly singled out for its high ethical standards
You mean the "thanks for advertising in our magazine" award?
Give that Intel has never been convicted of law-breaking
Like OJ wasn't convicted of murdering Nicole? But Intel's trial is still to come. Of course, you must not believe the testimony of numerous CEOs, as outlined in AMD's complaint. I guess they're all lying. Along with the Japanese FTC. You must be really dreading March, when the Japan info goes public.
Alan, you meant 2005, not 2006.
I guess you won't be back, then? :)
Exactly right. In fact, what kind of person is it that roots for a law-breaking bully?
The lawsuit has everything to do with AMD's competitiveness. They already had the technology advantage, but until Intel was restrained from acting to illegally suppress competition, they weren't gaining as much share as one would otherwise expect.
The mere filing of the lawsuit has given OEMs cover to increase their share of AMD products without fear of illegal reprisals from Intel.
The lawsuit was announced at the end of Q2. AMD earned 767M in CPG revs that quarter. In Q4, that number was 1307M.
I realize that Tenchu, et. al. deny this, but to me, he seems like a family member who just can't believe that "grandpa" is a local mob boss. It's obvious to virtually everyone in the industry what was going on-- it's just that some Intel engineers are in denial about the kind of practices management was engaging in. Accepting that your employer has been breaking the law in a widespread fashion is undoubtedly difficult.
CMP is another rather pro-Intel publishing house. And Kristen Kenedy isn't exactly a top-flight author. Here's a previous article of hers from November.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21888199
And... Larry Piland? Please. He seems to be a go-to guy for stupid quotes. "Dell-AMD would be bad." "AMD should crush third-party mobos and chipsets"
Funny, his company is an Intel premier provider partner. No AMD partnership listed.
http://www.datelsys.com/partners.asp
But the biggest laugher is the notion that OEMs are buying more Intel chips than they have chipsets to pair with them, for 3 quarters running. Sure, Bryant. That makes about as much sense as his "we lost about 1 point of market share" lie.
Have you been drinking, or something?
Another sucker who buys the chipset shortage + OEM inventory excuse?
And what are you going on about with the "AMD only captured 1% marketshare" nonsense? That was Bryant's lie. Read the analyst reports. It was a gain of 3-4% in revenue marketshare in 1 quarter.
The rest is just more ranting.
How's that glass house living working out?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9238303
Prudential has always been low on Intel
Yeah, well, they were RIGHT, as it turns out. You discounted them at your own risk.
<reply to a deleted message>
Yeah, I have that one too.