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.
Yeah, it's great they finally implemented those 10 lines of code that enables RSS.
I personally like to use Opera for RSS, it has all (Browsing, Email, etc) in a very small package (<4MByte), is very stable and not a resource hog compared to others.
You think this is the secret TMTA project? To me, it feels like the timeline doesn't fit, expecting it to be a different project announced a bit later. But hey, I could be wrong.
At least we will know soon what the MSFT project is all about. Maybe it is a product that launches together with Vista?
As for IBM and LR2 it would seem the logical next license. First, since IBM is closely involved in projects with former licensees (Cell etc), and second, if you add all together LR2 is relatively cheap to have.
The upfront payment for those big companies is like buying somebody a coffee and the recurring royalties will probably be payed from the yield increases enabled with TMTA LR2. So this means good business for all involved.
And if IBM is not the 5th, it could be the 6th.
Indeed, and Art gave a couple of reasons why it will be interesting in the CC.
Besides, on the next quarterly report, TMTA will have it's first positive trailing-twelve-months eps in its history. And that will look very good and not only on paper.
Cheers
CC in a couple of min, at 5 EDT.
Sure, and not to forget the 4th LR2 License:
Toshiba
Transmeta Licenses Its LongRun2 Technologies for Low Power and Leakage Management to Toshiba
Business Wire - February 23, 2006 16:05
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Feb 23, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Transmeta Corporation (NASDAQ:TMTA), the leader in efficient computing technologies, today announced that it has licensed to Toshiba Corporation, one of Japan's largest electronics companies and Japan's leader in semiconductors, Transmeta's LongRun2(TM) technologies for reducing power, controlling transistor leakage and improving the operating characteristics of semiconductor devices.
Transmeta's LongRun2 technologies provide semiconductor manufacturers and chip designers with innovative ways to reduce power consumption. Among the many techniques developed by Transmeta is a unique new approach to controlling transistor leakage that is simpler to implement and requires less area than prior approaches. By controlling transistor leakage with LongRun2 techniques, chips can often be operated at lower power, and yield can often be improved for chips with tight power budgets. LongRun2 can help adjust leakage dynamically to provide both for the lowest standby power and for adjustment of performance and power during chip operation.
The agreement allows Toshiba to use Transmeta's LongRun2 technologies for selected application areas in the 90 through 22 nanometer CMOS process generations.
"Toshiba was impressed with the ingenuity of Transmeta's low power approaches," said Tomotaka Saito, General Manager, Broadband System LSI Division at Toshiba's semiconductor company. "By licensing Transmeta's LongRun2 technologies, Toshiba will have additional techniques to add to our own power consumption reducing technologies to further reduce power in the semiconductor devices we provide to our customers."
"Transistor leakage power is going to be an increasing challenge as chip dimensions get smaller, and Transmeta is pleased to provide LongRun2 technologies as one of the many techniques that Toshiba will be able to provide to designers to help reduce leakage and total chip power," said David R. Ditzel, founder and CTO of Transmeta.
Yeah. Do you use EW? I am not, but when I just glanced at the TMTA 2 year chart, I realized EW fans must love this stock...
Earnings coming up:
SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 9, 2006--Transmeta Corporation (NASDAQ:TMTA - News), the leader in efficient computing technologies, announced that it will release results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2005, after the NASDAQ market closes on Thursday, February 23, 2006.
Hey, thank you all for your thoughts on this issue. It is for sure still very open what will come out of this. The damages RMBS seeks, do seem quite high and I can't imagine there will be cash transfers that high or the defendents just willing to pay that much. The court will have to answer the question, if RMBS tech would have been widespread today without the cartel. That imo is not easy question to answer and it leaves room in any direction.
I rather see some kind of new deals coming out of this, were the defendents will license RMBS tech instead of just paying cash damages. This could open the gate for certain RMBS tech to become defacto industry standarts and will lead to huge cash flows direction RMBS. IMO that will be even better than just 1 billion $ cash transfer of damages since it opens the possibilities of long term royalties etc. Just my thoughts out of experience of how such law suits are handled.
be smart dont short this stock.
Nah, I hardly short stocks below $10 bill market cap, and if just for hedging purposes. RMBS is far to volatile and uptrendy atm for me to catch that rising knife. lol
Hi,
how much is Rambus seeking in total monetary damages from the companies it sues for memory price fixing?
Is there any info or speculation availabe on that? Maybe somebody could point me there.
Thx.
Well, there really hasn't been any public news as of late. But TMTA did present at the Needham growth conference a few days back. So, with that info one has to assume that institutional ownership is slowly but steadily rising. fwiw.
It does indeed. It's a bit off topic, but I do wonder if Apple made the wrong decision with going x86. Maybe they should have waited a bit and then go with Cell instead. All I hear is porting software over is very slow and far from done. And the Rosetta translation soft slows down most of it for now...
Happy New Year to you as well as to the board.
With this kind of evidence of guilt forcing OEMs to adopt Intels inferior products, one might start to wonder how big the compensation payments to the discriminated CPU companies (e.g. Transmeta) will be? It clearly can't take too long until a court ruling. Surely the best would be to impose a maximum marketshare % on Intel products, like 66% or even lower to stop this welfare-reducing monopoly.
interesting part highlighted:
Tokyo District Court Denies Intel K.K. Argument to Keep Evidence Obtained by JFTC of Illegal Business Practices from the Public Record
Business Wire - December 16, 2005 00:50
Fair Trade Commission of Japan to Turn over Evidence Collected in Its Investigation of Intel K.K. by March 17, 2006
TOKYO, Dec 16, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- 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 around 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.
AMD's Position on Fair and Open Competition
AMD stands for fair and open competition and the value and variety competition delivers to the marketplace. Innovative AMD technology allows users to break free to reach new levels of performance, productivity and creativity. Businesses and consumers should have the freedom to choose from a range of competitive products that come from continuous innovation. When market forces work, consumers have choice and everyone wins. For more information, please visit http://www.amd.com/breakfree.
About AMD
AMD (NYSE:AMD) designs and produces innovative microprocessors, Flash memory devices and low-power processor solutions for the computer, communications and consumer electronics industries. AMD is dedicated to delivering standards-based, customer-focused solutions for technology users, ranging from enterprises to government agencies and individual consumers. For more information visit www.amd.com.
AMD, the AMD Arrow logo and combinations thereof, are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Other names are for informational purposes only and may be trademarks of their respective owners.
SOURCE: AMD
AMD Japan Public Relations
Shun Yoshizawa, +81-33346-7616
(Japan)
email: shunsuke.yoshizawa@amd.com
or
AMD Public Relations
Dave Kroll, 408-749-3310
(U.S.)
email: dave.kroll@amd.com
or
AMD Government Relations
Jens Drews, +49 351 277 1015
(Europe)
email: jens.drews@amd.com
Google engineer on power costs. The link has all the charts and follow up pages. Interesting to note, that @ Google performance per watt stayed virtually the same over multiple generations of hardware, while usually articles about AMD and Intel x86 processors claim a spiraling acceleration of performance per watt over the last years (decades?). Who is right? Maybe cooling costs are greatly misjudged?
*****************************+
http://acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=330
The Price of Performance
ACM Queue vol. 3, no. 7 - September 2005
by Luiz André Barroso, Google
An Economic Case for Chip Multiprocessing
Cost
In the late 1990s, our research group at DEC was one of a growing number of teams advocating the CMP (chip multiprocessor) as an alternative to highly complex single-threaded CPUs. We were designing the Piranha system,1 which was a radical point in the CMP design space in that we used very simple cores (similar to the early RISC designs of the late '80s) to provide a higher level of thread-level parallelism. Our main goal was to achieve the best commercial workload performance for a given silicon budget.
Today, in developing Google's computing infrastructure, our focus is broader than performance alone. The merits of a particular architecture are measured by answering the following question: Are you able to afford the computational capacity you need? The high-computational demands that are inherent in most of Google's services have led us to develop a deep understanding of the overall cost of computing, and continually to look for hardware/software designs that optimize performance per unit of cost.
This article addresses some of the cost trends in a large-scale Internet service infrastructure and highlights the challenges and opportunities for CMP-based systems to improve overall computing platform cost efficiency.
UNDERSTANDING SYSTEM COST
The systems community has developed an arsenal of tools to measure, model, predict, and optimize performance. The community's appreciation and understanding of cost factors, however, remain less developed. Without thorough consideration and understanding of cost, the true merits of any one technology or product remain unproven.
We can break down the TCO (total cost of ownership) of a large-scale computing cluster into four main components: price of the hardware, power (recurring and initial data-center investment), recurring data-center operations costs, and cost of the software infrastructure.
Often the major component of TCO for commercial deployments is software. A cursory inspection of the price breakdown for systems used in TPC-C benchmark filings shows that per-CPU costs of just operating systems and database engines can range from $4,000 to $20,000.2 Once the license fees for other system software components, applications, and management software are added up, they can dwarf all other components of cost. This is especially true for deployments using mid- and low-end servers, since those tend to have larger numbers of less expensive machines but can incur significant software costs because of still-commonplace per-CPU or per-server license-fee policies.
Google's choice to produce its own software infrastructure in-house and to work with the open source community changes that cost distribution by greatly reducing software costs (software development costs still exist, but are amortized over large CPU deployments). As a result, it needs to pay special attention to the remaining components of cost. Here I will focus on cost components that are more directly affected by system-design choice: hardware and power costs.
Figure 1 shows performance, performance-per-server price, and performance-per-watt trends from three successive generations of Google server platforms. Google's hardware solutions include the use of low-end servers.3 Such systems are based on high-volume, PC-class components and thus deliver increasing performance for roughly the same cost over successive generations, resulting in the upward trend of the performance-per-server price curve. Google's fault-tolerant software design methodology enables it to deliver highly available services based on these relatively less-reliable building blocks.
Nevertheless, performance per watt has remained roughly flat over time, even after significant efforts to design for power efficiency. In other words, every gain in performance has been accompanied by a proportional inflation in overall platform power consumption. The result of these trends is that power-related costs are an increasing fraction of the TCO.
Such trends could have a significant impact on how computing costs are factored. The following analysis ignores other indirect power costs and focuses solely on the cost of energy. A typical low-end x86-based server today can cost about $3,000 and consume an average of 200 watts (peak consumption can reach over 300 watts). Typical power delivery inefficiencies and cooling overheads will easily double that energy budget. If we assume a base energy cost of nine cents per kilowatt hour and a four-year server lifecycle, the energy costs of that system today would already be more than 40 percent of the hardware costs.
And it gets worse. If performance per watt is to remain constant over the next few years, power costs could easily overtake hardware costs, possibly by a large margin. Figure 2 depicts this extrapolation assuming four different annual rates of performance and power growth. For the most aggressive scenario (50 percent annual growth rates), power costs by the end of the decade would dwarf server prices (note that this doesn't account for the likely increases in energy costs over the next few years). In this extreme situation, in which keeping machines powered up costs significantly more than the machines themselves, one could envision bizarre business models in which the power company will provide you with free hardware if you sign a long-term power contract.
The possibility of computer equipment power consumption spiraling out of control could have serious consequences for the overall affordability of computing, not to mention the overall health of the planet. It should be noted that although the CPUs are responsible for only a fraction of the total system power budget, that fraction can easily reach 50 percent to 60 percent in low-end server platforms.
Read on page 2
Here are some specs and pics of the Efficeon Supercomputer.
Like the sketch with the "330 Watt Power Supply" for the 17 CPU Cluster Unit ... Peak performance / Power = 600MFlops / W
http://www.para.tutics.tut.ac.jp/megascale/r_mproto.html
MegaProto was designed and built in collaboration with IBM Japan to investigate and demonstrate such feasibility.
Wonder how many model 01 and 01+ were sold to date:
OQO, manufacturer of Windows XP-based handheld computers, today said that it has secured $20 million in financing. The financing round was led by Paladin Capital Group as well as Motorola Ventures, the venture capital arm of Motorola. OQO intends to use the funds to increase its sales and marketing efforts and to "accelerate" research and development of upcoming devices. According to the company, " over 400 corporate and government entities" have purchase OQO devices so far.
Azure Capital, a member of the Paladin Capital Group, said that it believes that the category of pocketable Windows computers will emerge during 2006. OQO is likely to see plenty of competition, and not just from Vulcan's FlipStart, but also from manufacturers that will develop handheld PC devices based on Intel's ultra-mobile PC (UMPC) platform.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/11/16/oqo_investment/index.html
Nice, sounds like part of this financing money could end up at Transmeta as upfront payment for Efficion production (model 02)...
Wireless and mobile is truely a hot sector at the moment. I wonder what will happen here. Motorola could end up buying OQO outright or keep it as a research and development "satellite" for their own products via partnership. Whatever, this seems like an good opportunity for Efficion to find its way into MOT products. We'll see.
I hope that Transmeta sees, now that they have covered their base somewhat, the time to make bigger leaps instead of smaller steps is here.
In specific, I would love to see them max out their internal growth possibilities. So when Culturecom in Q1 and maybe another LR2 licensee fee comes in Q2, they will probably have $10-20 mill profit in the 1H06. That could be spent on new personal or projects to support more LR2 licensees or step up product sales or any new project that could result in increased revenue starting in 2H06.
They stated in the CC that they are going to do that at least partially, and we have to expect the R&D position on the balance sheet to increase to around $3 mill due to Efficion support in Q4. However, considering that it probably takes new engineers 3-9 months to get into the "loop", this might not be the "maxed out" policy that is possible.
Of course, these investment would only make sense if there really are results from them in a short time period. Sure they know that, but sometimes companies who come out of extreme cost saving periods tend to be too timid on the beginning of growth cycles. I just don't like them rejecting customers now, because they "can't support them".
All the opinion of an outsider...
I hate to break it too you, but TMTA is neither outsourcing their service work to another company nor do they book salaries for Transmeta personel working under the service agreement (as termed in reports) under r/d or sg/a but under cost of services.
It's written in ENGLISH in more than one report and is mentioned even in the CC, and probably on this board as well. I am not going to do the footwork to post it here, since it is easy to find.
But hey, you proof once again that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just here to spread your usual dose of FUD and LIES. Your tune is getting old.
So what do we got for 2006? In short:
Q1 profitable because of Culturecom cash infusion.
Q2 profitable because of 4. LR2 Licensee payments (takes up to 6 month to complete tech transfer).
Q3 profitable because of
-LR2 royalties
-Culturecom royalties
-Efficion product sales
-possible 5. LR2 Licensee payment
Q4 profitable for same reason Q3 was, and from here on out up and away with increasing revenue and profits. And somewhere in between we have Microsoft milestone payments and maybe new yet unforeseen income.
big120pw, sure we holders want to see profits and growth, but let's not forget first and foremost turning a profit helps the people of Transmeta. It gives them independence as a company and the freedom to innovate as they wish or can. Without a profit and their ability to live on their own as a small company, they would either be unemployed or working for a bigger company with much less influence on the direction their work can take and much less ability to create. imho Let's see what they can come up with next.
LOL, and I thought TMTAs reports are oversimplified.
How sure are you the fool isn't you here?
It's that " - " the street sees.
Fine with me, since they will see the " + " soon enough.
Looks like seriously reduced headcounts to me. No wonder they can turn a profit now. I wonder what this company can produce with 14% the R&D.
Wrong! Headcount and R&D wasn't reduced, it's just booked in a different place, namely under "cost of revenue: services". Learn to read a balance sheet!
...and all my charts are log normal unlike most charts you see around...
so what else do I have to say?
This earnings are great and also the guidance is:
-The trailing twelve month EPS was -$0.43. With todays earnings they improved that to ttm EPS of -$0.22.
-With next Qs guidance EPS the ttm EPS will be improved to -$0.09. This is how I see it. This will further improve in Q105, when it finally will be positive...
Of course licensing margins are this high. There is virtually no cost associated with licensing, aside from administrative costs.
Exactly, and because a large part of the business model is licensing and their total gross margin is 70.5%, this company should be valued accordingly, namely stock prices >$3 right now.
Am very satisfied about the results, also guidance is good in my eyes, since they don't yet account for a few additional cash streams coming in soon. In the end it doesn't matter when they realize those. As they said, they prefer to look at half-year time frames instead of quaters....
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Nov 08, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Transmeta Corporation (Nasdaq:TMTA), the leader in efficient computing technologies, today announced financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2005.
Highlights for the Third Quarter 2005
-- Net revenue of $27.9 million
-- Net income of $10.1 million, or $0.05 per share
-- Positive cash flow from operations of $9.5 million
-- Cash balance of $56.9 million at September 30, 2005
-- Deferred income of $6.0 million
-- Engineering services projects with Sony and Microsoft continue to progress well
Business Update
"We are pleased with our results as they reflect the early success of our modified business model," commented Arthur L. Swift, president and CEO. "Our continuing goal is to drive Transmeta's technology into high volume market segments by leveraging licensing, customized processor development, and synergistic engineering services. As an early innovator in the fields of microprocessor design and power reduction for leading edge chips, as well as a pioneer in addressing the challenge of power leakage, we have a solid technology base on which to build a sustainable competitive advantage. This year, we will have successfully transformed our business, and as we look to 2006, we are well positioned to capitalize on our solid financial progress and key strategic customer relationships."
Net revenue for the third quarter of 2005 was $27.9 million, compared to $24.7 million in the second quarter of 2005, and $7.0 million in the third quarter of 2004. Net revenue in the third quarter comprised $9.6 million of license revenue, $10.3 million of service revenue and $7.9 million of product revenue. This compares with $10.0 million of license revenue, $7.6 million of service revenue, and $7.1 million of product revenue in the second quarter of 2005. The product revenue reflects end-of-life (EOL) product sales as well as customer product programs which have reached or are reaching the end of their respective product life. In addition, the Company reported deferred income of $6.0 million as of September 30, 2005, as compared to $15.5 million for the second quarter of 2005.
The Company reported gross margin of 99.5% for the license business, 41.6% for the service business and 72.7% for the product business. On a consolidated basis, the Company's gross margin was 70.5% for the 2005 third quarter, compared to 67.1% for the second quarter of 2005, and a negative 62.2% for the third quarter of 2004.
The Company's net income for the third quarter of 2005 was $10.1 million, or $0.05 per share compared with a net income of $6.8 million, or $0.04 per share in the second quarter of 2005, and a net loss of $28.6 million, or a loss of $0.16 per share in the third quarter of 2004.
The Company had positive cash flow from operations of $9.5 million in the third quarter of 2005, as compared to positive cash flow of $4.8 million in the second quarter of 2005 and negative cash flow of $21.2 million in the third quarter of 2004. The Company's cash, cash equivalents and short term investments at September 30, 2005 totaled $56.9 million.
"Our licensing and services businesses, with their varying times to revenue recognition, coupled with our present high degree of customer concentration, can result in a variable revenue profile from quarter to quarter," continued Swift. "Looking forward, our goal is to generate new sources of revenue in 2006, including new licensees for our LongRun2 technologies, our first royalties from our previous LongRun2 licensees, and new revenues from specialized versions of our 90 nanometer Efficeon products."
Guidance
For the 2005 fourth quarter and FYE 2005, we expect:
-- Positive operating cash flow of $6.0 to $6.5 million in the second half of 2005, increased from prior guidance of breakeven cash flow for the second half
-- Fourth quarter negative operating cash flow of $3.0 to $3.5 million
-- FYE 2005 year end cash of $53.0 million, increased from prior guidance of $47.0 million
-- Fourth quarter total revenue of $12.0 to $13.0 million
-- Fourth quarter net loss of $5.4 to $5.9 million, or a loss of $0.03 per share
"In the third quarter, we continued to build on the operational and financial success of the second quarter, and we expect to exceed our stated key objective of achieving break-even or better cash flow from operations for the second half of 2005," commented Mark R. Kent, chief financial officer. "For the full year, we are expecting revenues of at least $71 million, which includes product revenue of approximately $24 million. This product revenue includes EOL and legacy customer sales which we expect to substantially conclude this year."
"Looking forward, we expect to replace this transitioning product revenue with new revenue from licensing, services, and our specialized 90 nanometer Efficeon product business," continued Kent. "As we move into next year, we expect to continue growing our Sony services business. In addition, we expect to achieve key program milestones and the recognition of related revenue for a significant development services contract in the first half of 2006."
5 cents profit Q3 ... Boooom
*DJ Transmeta Reports Rev Of $27.9 M And Positive Cash Flow From Ops For Q3 2005; Raises Cash Guidance To $53 M At 2005 Fiscal Yr End Guides To Rev Of $71 M To $72 M For Full Yr 2005> TMTA
One of the rare days I read yahoo boards, good posts there lately. Caught a good link there:
China will be first to get S3's Chrome graphics chip
3 nov 2005 | 09:57 uur
S3 Graphics Co. Ltd.'s upcoming Chrome graphics processors will be offered first in China before being made available in other countries, the company said Thursday.
The Chrome S20 family of graphics processors includes the S25 and S27, which are targeted at mainstream PC users and gamers, respectively. The new chips offer performance that is comparable to offerings from rivals Nvidia Corp. and ATI Technologies Inc. while consuming less power, according to Keith Kowal, a spokesman for S3 shareholder Via Technologies Inc.
For example, the Chrome S27, which has a 700MHz graphics core, typically consumes 10 to 12 watts of power while comparable chips produced by other companies consume 17 to 30 watts, according to S3, in Fremont, California.
Add-in cards based on the Chrome S27 with 128M bytes of DDR3 (Double Data Rate 3) memory will cost around US$100, Kowal said. Cards based on the S25 with DDR or DDR2 memory are likely to cost under US$70, he said.
The Chrome S20 series is being produced using a 90-nanometer production process by Fujitsu Ltd. under a contract manufacturing agreement announced by S3 on Wednesday.
The exact date of availability for these chips was not immediately announced. But Kowal said they will be first made available in China, where S27's combination of low price and decent performance should make them appealing to customers in the country's fast-growing PC market.
The S25, which is based on a 600MHz graphics core, is being pitched by S3 as an alternative to chipsets with an integrated graphics processor. The company expects that most chipsets with integrated graphics processors won't be ready to support the Aero interface used with Microsoft Corp.'s upcoming Windows Vista operating system, opening up an opportunity for the S25, Kowal said.
"OEMs are going to need cheap, good-value graphics cards that they can put into systems for Vista," he said
http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=1802
[Looks to me VIA is going for the right segment/target with it's chips here. These chips perform like a Geforce 6600 and with card prices below $100, they actually can grap a good piece of the cake. Interesting developments imho]
$3 we were already looking for 3 month ago, I do hope too, it will materialize finally soon..
Anyone else find it puzzling that the mobile computer to be offered by Ford uses a Crusoe chip?
Not really, since to update this design factor (Tablet PC) from Crusoe to Efficion is a non issue imho. I think it was designed as a "market test", where when successful Ford will expand this to other car models and Efficion chips. Not to mention that the computing power of the 1GHz Crusoe is more than enough for those applications used in cars mostly...
In any way, don't forget the $15 million Culturecom pays to Transmeta is for the Hardware (masks etc) and the license to market the chips for 2 regions if I remember right it was China and Taiwan (or Malaysia). Whatever it was, Transmeta receives ongoing royalties, and when Ford decides to stick with Crusoe instead of Efficion, then Transmeta could easily sell additional region licenses (e.g. US) to Culturecom for an upfront fee and receive 99% profit margins royalties on any of the sold chips whether it be Crusoe or Efficion.
Sounds good enough for me.
More on Ford including Transmeta tech:
Ford to Debut Pickup With Mobile Office
Oct 31, 9:38 PM (ET)
By DEE-ANN DURBIN
DETROIT (AP) - Ford Motor Co. (F) says it will soon offer wireless mobile offices in its F-series pickups, an option aimed at building contractors and others who do business on the road.
A Ford F-250 Super Duty truck equipped with a mobile office is scheduled to debut Tuesday at the Specialty Equipment Market Association show in Las Vegas. The annual show isn't open to the public, but it dazzles an estimated 100,000 automotive insiders with souped-up vehicles and the latest aftermarket trends and components.
Ford expects to offer the mobile office as a dealer-installed accessory in 2006. Pricing isn't finalized, but it would cost around $3,000 for a wireless-equipped computer, printer and global positioning system, Ford spokesman Alan Hall said. Add-ons like a digital camera and credit card scanner also would be available.
The system uses a flat Stargate Mobile computer, powered by the truck's battery and mounted on a stand between the driver's seat and passenger seat. The computer has a touch-screen option - eliminating the need for a keyboard or mouse - and is designed to be removed from the stand and taken to a work site. It stays connected to the Internet via a broadband wireless cellular card and even has a screen that is visible in direct sunlight.
"It's super rugged. You can drop it in the dirt, pick it up, brush it off and you're good to go," said Patty Dilger, director of North American automotive and industrial equipment for Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), which worked with Ford to develop the mobile office and provides the Windows XP Professional operating system.
Dilger said this is the first time that operating system has been available as a dealer-installed option in a vehicle. Microsoft has an operating system called Windows Automotive 5.0 in about 18 vehicle models, but it's mainly used for vehicle communication systems such as real-time traffic updates.
The computer in the Ford pickups will be equipped with a full suite of office software, including Excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint, and can also play music or be used for navigation.
"It's not new technology. It's innovatively packaging very familiar technology," Hall said. "That's the best part. It's user-friendly."
Dilger envisions a contractor who would be able to review measurements in a blueprint, order a door online and pay for it without having to go back and forth to the office. She emphasized that the system can be disabled or used with voice commands while the owner is driving so it's less distracting.
The F-series truck was the best-selling vehicle in the United States for the 23rd straight year in 2004. Around 60 percent of F-series buyers use their trucks for business, Hall said.
Hall said if the mobile office is successful, Ford will consider adding it to other vehicles.
Thirteen other automakers also will be showing specialty vehicles during the four-day show, including Toyota Motor Co., Honda Motor Co. (HMC), DaimlerChrysler AG (DCX) and Hyundai Motor Co.
General Motors Corp. (GM) said it will be showing off customized versions of 25 smaller GM vehicles as well as the newest members of Cadillac's performance lineup, the STS-V and XLR-V.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20051101/D8DJDAE82.html
TMTA
S3 turns to Transmeta tech for low-power graphics chips
Signs 90nm fab deal with Fujitsu
By Tony Smith
Published Wednesday 2nd November 2005 09:21 GMT
S3 Graphics, chip maker VIA's graphics processor subsidiary, has signed Fujitsu to fab the company's products at 90nm, the partners announced today.
Fujitsu will produce S3's Chrome family, including the upcoming Chrome 20 mid-range chip, expected to be clocked at 700MHz or more yet consume only 5-15W of power.
Today, S3 said the chips would indeed provide "high speeds and industry-leading performance per watt". Fujitsu's 90nm process makes that possible, it said, because the technology yields chips that run "25 per cent faster and with power savings of at least 25 per cent compared to chips made with conventional 90nm processes".
S3 may well have erstwhile VIA rival Transmeta ( Nasdaq: TMTA ) to thank for that. In December 2004, Transmeta licensed its LongRun 2 power conservation and transistor-leakage reduction system to Fujitsu for incorporation into the Japanese firm's production process. Technology licensing deals like this are part and parcel of Transmeta's business model these days, now it has stopped offering x86-compatible CPUs under its own name.
S3's 90nm chips will be made at Fujitsu's Mie, Japan plant, a 300mm-wafer facility that only opened for business in April this year. S3, which has in the past looked to the likes of TSMC and UMC to produce its graphics processors, said it would be using Fujitsu for future, post-90nm products.
The Chrome 20 is set to ship later this quarter. It has been said the part features eight pixel pipelines and four vertex shaders, and it supports HD video and SLi-style multi-card operation. ®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/02/s3_signs_fujitsu/
The poison pill should still be in place. If they get rid of it, they have to announce it, I think they even have to ask shareholders to vote to get rid of it, but not 100% sure about that...
This COULD indeed be the start of a multiple week rally. We'll see.
Well, profits of 4 cents EPS doesn't sound unsuccessful too me. Sure they took a long time getting there, and still have to prove they can do this for more than one quarter in the future...
...but so does every other company.
Also, pissing of Intel surely made it harder for them to compete in the market place, but let's not forget, without all that buzz they would never have raised enough cash to stay alive until today. That said, here they are now with a new business model, ready to make some money for all shareholders above or under water.
I had hoped you realize I was kidding, but apparently that humor doesn't seem to come across...
so long
Transmeta Schedules Annual Stockholders Meeting for November 17, 2005
Business Wire - October 04, 2005 09:00
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct 04, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Transmeta Corporation (Nasdaq:TMTA), the leader in efficient computing technologies, today announced that its Board of Directors has set Thursday, November 17, 2005, as the date for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The meeting will be held at the Hilton Santa Clara Hotel located at 4949 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California starting at 8 a.m. Pacific Standard Time.
You suck indeed if you only make 50% while everybody else makes north of 200%.
Relatively speaking you grew poorer compared to others.
You really suck...
On September 27, 2005, the Board of Directors of Transmeta Corporation (the "Company") approved the accelerated vesting of certain outstanding stock options previously granted under the Company's equity incentive plans and agreements. The decision accelerates the vesting of all unvested employee stock options granted before September 27, 2005 having exercise prices higher than $2.00 per share. The closing price of the Company's common stock on September 27, 2005 was $1.38. The decision to accelerate the vesting of the affected options was based upon a recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, which committee consists entirely of independent, non-employee directors. Stock options held by non-employee directors of the Company were not accelerated. These actions were taken in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Company's stock option plans, and the Company believes the decision to be in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders.
As a result of the acceleration, unvested options to purchase approximately 2.3 million shares of the Company's common stock became fully vested and immediately exercisable. The affected stock options have exercise prices ranging from $2.02 to $3.98 per share, and a weighted average exercise price of $2.41. The affected options include options to purchase approximately 587,000 shares of the Company's common stock held by the Company's executive officers, having a weighted average exercise price of $2.32. This acceleration is effective as of September 27, 2005.
The Company's decision to accelerate the vesting of the affected employee stock options was primarily to eliminate or reduce the compensation expense relating to such options that the Company would otherwise be expected to record in its statement of operations for future periods upon the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment ("SFAS 123R"). SFAS 123R will be effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of 2006, and will require that compensation expense associated with stock options be recognized in the statement of operations, rather than as footnote disclosure in consolidated financial statements. The Company estimates that the maximum future expense to be eliminated is approximately $3.0 million, approximately $754,000 of which is attributable to options held by executive officers of the Company. This estimate is subject to change but is based on estimated value calculations using the Black-Scholes methodology. The Company expects that this amount will be reflected in a pro forma footnote disclosure in its fiscal year 2005 financial statements, as permitted under the transition guidance provided by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/051003/tmta8-k.html