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 is really too bad to see so many investors drawn into the AMD deceptions.
Where can I buy an Atlon FX system and when will it work?
When will the FX have an AGP port that works?
When can I get a driver for a Open GL graphics card?
When will the stability issues with the FX get fixed?
The P4 EE system is indeed available and its infrastructure support is thriving. Just plug a P4 EE into a motherboard with and 865 or 875 Intel chipset. The P4 EE has the same 478 pin format as the existing P4.
The Athlon FX system that was provided for the benchmark tests is not available. The laboratory special from AMD used:
- A 940 pin Atlon FX that will have 939 pins in commercial form
- A prototype nVidia chipset, with bugs, that is not available
- A non-working AGP port
- A registered DDR400 that is virtually unobtainable and not certified
- Beta Windows A64 OS not available until H1 2004
- Beta hardware drivers that are not available.
Would you like some ketchup with that crow?
It is too bad that the AMD fans either lack the knowledge or else the rational thinking that would allow them to see through the deceptions offered by AMD.
More facts -- embarrassing facts.
Anandtech, 09/23/2003
<http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884>
· "At the launch of the Athlon 64, the predominant operating environment will be running 32-bit applications under a 32-bit OS...none of the performance improvements you'll see in this case will have anything to do with the 64-bit capabilities of the processor."
· "Look at the facts, AMD labels the Athlon 64 FX as an "enthusiast" processor, only sends Athlon 64 FX parts "out to reviewers - the fact of the matter is that AMD doesn't want to face criticism about their naming system any longer so they've removed it where possible, and kept it where they thought it was necessary. AMD will get no complaints from us about the series numbers attached to the Athlon 64 FX, it remains to be seen if the Athlon 64's model numbers will suffer the same fate as the Athlon XP's."
· "Socket-939: Athlon 64 FX DOA?...If you want our advice, stay away from the FX for now."
· "We are seeing incredible support for nForce3, despite the fact that it doesn't really offer anything above and beyond VIA's solution."
· "Without application support, the 64-bit "experience" is quite anticlimactic. We browsed the web in 64-bit Internet Explorer for a while before rebooting the system and getting some work done in 32-bit Windows."
· "Our entire benchmark suite to this point has been on 32-bit applications under a 32-bit OS, mostly because there are no good desktop 64-bit applications at this point in a popular 64-bit OS (not to mention the issues with 64-bit Windows XP we described earlier)."
· "AMD has lost a considerable amount of credibility, and the Athlon 64 (and FX) of today will not bring AMD back to the heydays of the Athlon."
· "We cannot recommend the FX until AMD does release a version with unbuffered memory support and we would strongly suggest waiting until the Socket-939 version is released if you are considering the FX."
· "if AMD can actually get 64-bit applications and a compatible OS from Microsoft out in the market then the recommendations become much more positive for AMD. Until then, it's wait and see, AMD has done well but execution isn't a singular task - it is continued execution that will guarantee AMD a spot at the top of the market again."
Is this Fact or FUD ?
Tom's Hardware Guide, 09/23/2003
<http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html>
· "The P4 3.2 EE wins 32 times, the Athlon 64 FX-51 15 times - an uncertain 64-bit future for AMD"
· "Thanks to its ideal configuration and use of the best components, the P4 3.2 in the Extreme Edition (actually a Xeon labeled 'P4') wins the performance crown."
· "Game producers in general are also hesitant: although according to AMD, producers like Epic, Valve, Crytek, and SCI offer games based on 64-bit code. Companies such as ID Software, who are responsible for titles like Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003, are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon."
· "A few hours before posting this article the Athlon 64 was ahead of the Pentium 4 Standard Edition. But with the P4 Extreme Intel managed to considerably spoil AMD's launch. Now the latest Intel CPU wins in most of the benchmark tests."
· "The P4 EE was a contemptuous slap in the face against AMD. Intel said, 'We can play in your sandbox if we want to, and we aren't even trying.'"
The dispair of the AMD fans is a sad thing to watch.
HardOCP.com, 09/23/03
<http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0LDY>
· “For months we have been told that AMD simply has not produced enough CPUs to come close to filling market demand or putting any real profit dollars in their own pocket, which they terribly need.”
· “AMD would not supply us with a sample of their Athlon 64 3200+ CPU. We were left to use our sources to find our own. And this is a product launch? I'm thinking that we're about to see a paper launch of a rather large proportion. Let's hope that AMD can actually scale production over the next two quarters in order to deliver their Athlon64 CPUs at a competitive price and in large volume.”
Maybe Intel intimidated AMD so much that they were afraid to tell the motherboard manufacturers of this detail.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11713
Athlon 64 in short-term memory loss shocker
Computex 2003 Where did I leave my marbles?
By Sume Gai: Tuesday 23 September 2003, 08:57
LEADING MOTHERBOARD maker Biostar this morning confirmed to us what we've been suspecting for quite a while - that memory suitable for the upmarket AthlonFX platform is going to be very hard to come by.
In an interview with Biostar this morning, it revealed how its biggest problem designing Athlon64 motherboards had been finding memory they could use to test it with. A source at Corsair hinted this to us last month - that none of the DRAMurai realised that ECC, Registered DRAM was required for the FX platform and, since no other (major) platform on the earth requires it, nobody bothers making it (and apparently AMD didn't bother telling Biostar. Surely it wouldn’t have been hard?
"Oh yeah, and by the way, our new platform needs completely different memory...") As we understand it, only Corsair are ready to go with PC3200 AthlonFX compliant memory, with Kingston waiting in the wings in the final stages of its testing. For the record, Corsair memory was shipped in our review system by AMD, who are big fans of the enthusiast memory maker.
Whilst this is expected to play out just-fine for AMD in the long-term (other major RAM manufacturers are now, we believe, starting to ramp up production on ECC Registered) in the short term, combined with the apparent lack of Athlon64 chips, AMD are in serious danger of another non-launch, the likes of which we haven't seen since the AthlonXP 2800+. We will be bringing you more on the launch event here in Taipei, scheduled to happen tomorrow (well, it's tomorrow here, it'll still be today over in the UK. It's all so confusing).
In the meantime, we suggest you check out Biostar's funky range of small form factor PCs, which will shortly include an Athlon64 model, Here.
All of the AMD fans bought the Bait and Switch tactic of AMD. The Athlon64 FX is trotted out for the benchmark tests -- prototype nVidia chipset, beta version of Windows A64, uncertified "special" DDR400 and few device drivers.
The FX laboratory special crashes several 32 bit programs used in TH's benchmarks and the turkey had trouble with a soft reboot. You had to turn off the machine power for at least 20 seconds to get the system to reboot. What an embarrassing effort.
AMD will deliver very few FX processors to the market basically an overclocked Opteron 1xx with an overclocked bus, even if they can get the systems to work. It will deliver instead the Atlon64 that AMD would not even send out for testing because they were so ashamed of its performance. If AMD can only muster F2 FX parts for benchmark test in Europe it can barely manufacture the FX.
This may give the AMD fans a feel-good rush but where are the revenues? Where are the earnings?
When will AMD start to turn a profit? Hector won't answer that question.
The Athlon 64 is such a dog that AMD won't sent it out for testing. AMD wants a test of its hardly available A64 FX to run those tests. So it rigged up system with a prototype nForce 3 chipset and only 1 G of also unavailable DDR400 memory so it could get some good scores with its unavailable benchmark special
"AMD sent a complete system with an Athlon 64 FX-51 for testing. It was based on an Asus S8KN with an NForce 3 chipset. In spite of many requests and personal contacts, the manufacturer didn't want to make a sample of the "normal" Athlon 64 available. After that, a mainboard manufacturer gave us the desired processor without further ado. The test basis is also completely new: Since the AMD platform was based on 1 GB of main memory, the other platforms also had to manage with this amount of memory.
A test version of Windows A64 is better than the "pre-beta" version of AMD 64 that MS is providing on a limited basis.
Will AMD hand out a Windows 64 gift certificate for all those Athlon 64 systems they want their customers to sell. The reason for AMD's marketing pitch that the A64 is "64 bits ready" is abundantly clear.
There is virtually no 64 bit support available at the present time but AMD says that there is "gonna" be support one of these days. AMD is getting vey good at delivering "gonna" products. Unfortunately for AMD, those products do not produce revenue and AMD continues to lose money.
Remember Dan3's forecast about a year ago that 50% of AMD's processors would be 64 bits in Q2? AMD fell a little short of that forecast and sold something like 8,000 to 10,000 64 bit processors in Q2.
But not to worry, AMD is "gonna" sell tens of thousands of 64 bitters a quarter real soon according to recent forecasts. It also is forecast that AMD is going to lose money until Q4 of 2004.
The core claims the Digital and Intergraph suits against Intel were patent. And that was the settlement $$ were for patent licenses. In addition, in the Digital case, Intel bought Digital's fab and the Strong Arm design.
All of the antitrust claims of Intergraph were thrown out of Court before a trial, Because the antitrust claims were found without merit, the FTC entered a settlement with Intel that said Intel could withold confidential technology if a company sued it for patent infringement.
The settlement basically allowed Intel to do what it had done with Intergraph, ie refuse to deliver confidential information on its processors. The FTC claimed a victory but in reality Intel signed a consent decree that said Intel's conduct was lawful. In other words, Intel received the FTC's seal of legal approval and its conduct was insulated from attack.
How much do you think Intel paid Gartner for that "report"?
Nothing what so ever. What do you think Intel paid? More importantly, what evidence do you have Intel paid a dime for the Gartner report? None of course.
Sour grapes is the only choice when information arrives from the world of reality. The only approach for the AMD fans with the aluminum antenas. Otherwise, the AMD failures would require recognition.
But the sour grapes approach does have benefits over massive doses of mind altering drugs. Not much of a benefit, but some.
Anyone who claims that Intel doesn't test the limits of the law in their competitive practices is being overly naive or disingenuous
Again,you offer an assertion totally based on speculation. You little idea what the boundaries of the law are and absolutely no idea what legal advice Intel receives. From a point of zero knowledge of the legal boundaries, you then advance to speculation about Intel's conduct that you "just know" is improper.
The idea that Intel should not compete vigorously with all its competitors because poor little AMD can not keep up is ludicrous. Are you suggesting that Intel should reserve some business for poor little AMD? That by the way, would be a violation of the antitrust law -- an agreement to divide markets.
The FTC does understand the law and even at times chooses to go beyond the boundaries of existing law to establish new law. The FTC has investigated Intel for over a decade now and found nothing of interest. It has access to every one of Intel's documents. It has requested and received millions of documents from Intel, customers and competitors. The FTC has interviewed hundreds of witnesses.
AMD has had the opportunity to present to the government, US and EEC, of any evidence or suspicions it has no matter how weak. AMD has done precisely that.
The FTC with all its powers and extensive investigation has found nothing. It may soon abandon its decade long quest empty handed. The inaction of the FTC speaks loudly that Intel operates its business within the law.
AMD also has had the opportunity to file an antitrust or unfair competition law suit to seek billions of $$ if it has evidence that Intel has violated the law. AMD has done nothing but whine. Why doesn't AMD go seek those billions? Because it knows it has no legal case.
None the less, you and the other AMD fans just "know" that Intel is bad, bad, bad and violating the law. A very weak case indeed with only the faint credibility of constant repetition by the misguided to keep the claim alive.
Last quarter it was SARS, this quarter and in quarters past it is Intel's misconduct that has caused AMD's failures -- according to AMD. Wonder what the excuse will be in Q4 and next year?
At least this press release is sheduling the date of the next press release
A new high for AMD in its "gonna" program !!
A paper launch of a future paper launch. That is a a Paper Launch squared (tm Paul Engel).
What is the yield. I can't find the disclosure
Maybe you should use a more accurate side-by-side comparison.
http://www20.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030507/lifebook-18.html
Just to help the AMD cheerleaders read between the lines:
"The basic figures from Sysmark2002 suggest that the Athlon System (S2010) is 23 percent slower (overall value)."
The Arf Arf Athlon is embarrassing.
I'm not sure how to take their waiting for September on current processor sale guidance
AMD has given this type of guidance -- non-guidance actually -- in the past. Translated it means that they are not doing well but hope to pull a rabbit out of the hat in the last quarter and save the quarter.
Generally, AMD is unable to do that. Once they were able to sell a bunch of product at a heavily discounted price but they paid the price during the next quarter when the excess processors worked their way through the system.
This Q4 will be profitable
AMD will not be profitable in Q4 2003 according to analysts who follow AMD. Not even AMD forecasts a profit in Q4. The Q4 concensus is currently set at -0.22 per share. The highest estimate of any analyst is a loss of 0.08
http://biz.yahoo.com/z/a/a/amd.html
Only the folks in the aluminum foil hats believe AMD will have a profit in Q4.
Intel has followed a business plan that earns profits year after year. On the other hand, AMD managed to concoct a business plan that loses money year after year.
AMD has benn so successful with its "lose lots of money" plan that it will in Q4 achieve the very difficult distinction of having negative earnings since its inception.
Which plan is better for shareholders?
Could you please post a link to your explanation some time ago of how to include a chart in a message.
Intel is very good at earning money in bad times or good. At the same time AMD manages to lose money good times or bad.
AMD will on its present path manage to achieve an ignoble goal in Q4: after 30 plus years in business it will achieve a negative earnings total. Now that is hard to do !!
But Jerry "Where's Mine" Sanders is up to the task. During the life of AMD he has looted hundreds of millions of $$ from AMD.
One thing that has not changed, AMD is still losing money hand over fist. There is no relief currently in site.
Instead of revenue and earnings, AMD is delivering a bunch of press releases with "gonnas". One of these days, AMD will realize that it can not survive on 'we are "gonna" deliver' and that actual performance is required.
And all of those desktop machines will be running 32 bit Windows for the foreseeable future. When it arrives Windows 2003 Server will not see significant use on the desktop. More importantly, there are no 64 applications for the desktop that are anywhere in sight.
The Athlon 64 will in the real world simply provide a new 32 bit procesor that displaces Athlon XP.
You can not perform the correct calculation either.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1347188
Has it ocurred to you that you may be selecting the wrong numbers from the Intel financial report?
And you know this how?
I have been a guest at AMD and I have friends who are curent or former AMDers.
Why should an exec get free money from the shareholders even when the stock drops?
The guys controlling the award of free money for failure are the same ones that are getting the free money.
It is about like asking a thief if it is OK to steal.
At no time during the last 10 years has AMD stock had a market value of 1 penny. These were gifts to AMD executives.
Instead of the cash from AMD's limited supply, they were give shares that took value from shareholders through dilution.
Try your calculation again. Cash per share is about the same.
AMD:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/a/amd.html
Intel:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/i/intc.html
The answer on cash per share would be too embarassing for Petz to post the reult.
I didn't know they weren't allowed to spend more than the 1k.
An Intel employee can spend more than $1K. They do need to pay for anything over $1K.
Windsock <-- currently helping an Intel employee configure a Dell laptop
Do you think there are any intel computers sitting on the desks of AMD employees?
There actually are lots of Intel powered machines on AMD desks. Probably, more than there are AMD powered machines.
Why? Because AMD could not operate without Intel powered machines. AMD is so weak in the market that it can not supply its needs without Intel Inside.
AMD sold a bunch of its Fab Equipment in Japan to a GE Leasing Company and is now leasing the equipment back.
Just like AMD's rented headquarters in Sunnyvale. AMD will eventually own nothing.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA317370&s...
You could also take a look at last 15 years if you want to consider "long term" stock performance.
Intel up 5000% and AMD down.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=amd&k=c1&t=my&s=intc&a=v&p=s&l=on&z...
If it's for sale by Dell, maybe you can really buy it, and maybe you can't.
The Dell web site has a ship date for the its products. If you cared for truth and accuracy you could check to see when a 600m with a 1.7 GHz Pentium M would ship.
If you order today, the laptop will ship on Aug 29.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?cs=19&oc=600m64&m_22=IWPO11&m_1=B17G6...
Dell may not "count" in your book but it sells more PC's than any other vendor and it is the largest seller of laptops.
All the ooh-and-ahh reviewers got 1.6 GHz Centrino notebooks, but six months later, they are missing in action in stores.
Does Dell count?
See the Inspiron 600m:
Intel® Pentium® M Processors from 1.30GHz to 1.70GHz with Intel power-saving technology
http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/products/series_inspn_notebooks.htm
The hard numbers of actual sales show that Centrino is a wild success.
Counting laptops in the fertilizer section at Costco or in ads doesn't equal sales revenue. Perhaps the reading of chicken entrails might provide better data.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1220630,00.asp
Sales of AMD's mobile microprocessors dropped by 25 percent in the second quarter, according to analyst firm IDC, to the benefit of Intel.
Intel's overall microprocessor unit market share as of the second quarter stands at 81.6 percent, an increase of 1.2 percent, while AMD's share slipped 1.1 percent to 17.2 percent.
"Intel's ramp up of the Pentium M processor, part of its Centrino platform, showed in a sequential increase in mobile processor shipments," said Shane Rau, senior research analyst for IDC's Semiconductor: Desktop and Mobile PCs service, in a statement. "Meanwhile, AMD's mobile shipments reflected the seasonal decline in demand and loss of share by falling off approximately 25% sequentially. As a result, Intel took substantial mobile processor share from AMD."
In the mobile space, Intel gew its market share by 2.8 percent to a total of 88.1 percent, while AMD lost nearly that amount, 2.5 percent, to close the quarter with a 10.6 percent unit market share.
AMD executives did not mention any significant drops in mobile micoprocessor shipments when the company reported its second-quarter earnings in July.
In the desktop space, AMD also slipped, losing 2.5 percentage points of market share, slipping to 10.6 percent. Intel's share increased, climbing 2.8 percent to 88.1 percent. IDC attributed Intel's recent financial performance to Intel's new 800-MHz FSB processors as well as the higher selling prices of its mobile processors.
Wake up DARBES
Opterons Gathering Dust Bunnies
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10308
AMD Loses $140 million in Q2, Revenues drop and Cash dwindles.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/InvestorRelations/0,,51_306_643,00.html
Interesting concept. Truth is nonsense when it reals the false premises for your fantasy world.