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.
tecate go back and read the article. Otherwise you just come off as an Intel employee or an Intel Fanboy, or someone with poor reading comprehension skills. The article is very clear that they are not giving anything away. I think it just shows desperation on your part. But you invest all your money in Intel and you will get what you deserve.
Correction, AMD hit 96 then split Tenchu
As for Intel's comedy of errors in 2000 I will give you the same for 2004. 1.) Prescott is very late; this time last year it was supposed to be out in October. 2.) Prescott runs too hot; Intel hasn't been able to get the thermals down on Prescott causing redesigns by motherboard makers who were given the wrong thermal specs. 3.) There is little or no availability of Prescott, especially the 3.4G part; this is further shown by the fact that Intel hgad to come out with first the P4 3.2EE and now the P4 3.4EE. 4.) Itanium has been a dismal failure and more servers shipped in Q303 of Opteron than the whole first 3Q's of 03 for Itanium. 5.) Intel who had mocked AMD's 64 bit plans is left to follow in AMD's path because of Opteron adoptance by allthe major OEM's except for Dell which is telling Intel to get a 64 bit chip out or else; and this chip won't be out till at least 2005, likely Tejas so AMD will dominate in both the server and desktop space till at least then. 6.) Most importantly AMD has the performance lead, just like they did in 2000 when AMD hit 1G ahead of Intel.
All in all it sounds like another comedy of errors by Intel so it's time to face the fact that AMD is the stock to own, and Intel is not.
Saturn V what if? waht if?
Intel has no true 64 bit capability on Prescott which you would know if you had visited any tech websites. Intel is a year away and Intel fans can't sdeal with the fact that AMD is in the lead. Oh yeah, I don't hyperventilate, I just laugh at ignorance. cha-ching.
Smooth Itanium will never recoup the billions lost
It would have to be around 20 years and do much more business than being a niche product. Itanium was a loss and a major failure.
Elmer Itanium is going on life support
Itanium is going to go down as one of Intel's biggest failures.
Itanium will be very lucky to survive as a niche product and will never recoup it's costs which are in the billions. AMD is eating Intel's lunch till Intel gets Tejas out or whatever 64 bit answer Intel has.
Tenchu the point is Intel got greedy and had hoped to steer folks away from X86, but they failed miserably and now they are left to follow AMD. It shows Intel has a chink in their armor and AMD is exposing it. Don't be suprised to see AMD trading at the same level as Intel in Q4. As far as comparing to 2000, we will have to see how strong demand is, but AMD should easily beat INTC in EPS in the second half.
Greg read the news, 64 bit is coming and AMD is leading the way. Intel won't have anything to compete till at least 2005. Big bad Intel is stuck having wasted billions on Itanium only to have to follow AMD on X86-64. In the meanitime AMD is taking more and more of the high end business away from Intel in terms of server as well as desktop chips. Don't be suprised to see AMD make inroads with a 35 watt A64 which is coming. Now I ask you a question, prove that you are nothing more than an antagonist who likes to AMD bash but can't handle the fact that AMD has the upper hand. If you can't don't waste my time because I won't. Bye bye Greg.
Itanium is never going to recoup the billions spent on developing it. Intel hoped for the world and they will be lucky now if they can maintain a niche. WHen Intel rolls out their own X86-64 chip next year, there will be no purpose for anyone to buy them. X86-64 is king for the foreseeable future. ANd until Intel comes out with something, AMD is going to keep taking business from Xeon. 2004 is the year of AMD.
Greg I was right
Intel was down the last 2 days. Did I say anything about today although don't count your chickens before their hatched. Showing me a chart which includes today when I clearly stated the last 2 days earlier this morning was referring to Monday and Tuesday since today is and was far from over. I guess that's just the Intel Ideology, smoke and mirrors and nothing more. Your feeble attempt at proving me wrong failed.
elmer times are changing
Better get used to the idea that Xeon doesn't stand up to Opteron, and that's why everyone but Dell is either offering it or will offer it. Opteron has gained traction in the Linux community. Also don't kid yourself that a Xeon can compete in a 2P or 4P configuration against Opteron, because everyone knows Opteron scales far better than Xeon. Xeon is nothing but the little red headed stepchild in comparison to Opteron. I am curious as to whether or not you have been given any stock options of late at Intel?
AMD does have it's own compilers, but AMD doesn't have to sink to the level Intel does because Intel has been embarrassed by AMD with AMD going to X84-64 first, and Intel with no product till atleast next year. It's going to be a merry christmas for AMD in 2004.
Tecate hate to rain on your parade, nix that, I do like to rain on your parade. There is a subscription fee involved or did you not have the discipline to read the whole article. The bottom line is AMD is getting paid and you can't stand the fact that AMD has a leg up on Intel, and Intel won't have a X86-64 answer this year. Investors are starting to wisen up on this fact as well pushing AMD up the last 2 days strongly, while pushing Intel down.
tecate
Sun is giving it's software for free, not the servers. More than enough businesses want to buy Opteron, unlike Intanium which people don't even seem willing to try Itanium. Get used to the fact that Itanium is dead, long live Opteron, and oh yeah, Xeon is facing the grim reaper.
tecate
The problem is Intel is coding not to check if a chip supports SSE and SSE2, but whether or not the code prevents the optimization on a non Intel processor. In other words if you have an AMD chip, you don't want software compiled with a Intel compiler because it will not allow the AMD chip to use the optimization. Intel has sucken very low with this one. Check out the story at the Inquirer and the comments others have made. It shows just how low Intel is willing to go to try and keep up with AMD on performance.
Man tweaks Intel compiler to speed up Athlon FX51
Get rid of the Intel-specific flag and it roars
By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 10 February 2004, 15:37
THERE'S AN INTERESTING filing at the COMP.ARCH Usenet group which describes an experiment with an Intel compiler.
The person who posted the message said that he managed to tweak Intel's compiler to optimise an AMD FX51.
It took him a little bit of disassembly of the Intel-specific binary to get there, but once he'd disposed of a flag specific to its chips, he claimed that he ran a binary and got a 22% performance boost on the program.
Man tweaks Intel compiler to speed up Athlon FX51
Get rid of the Intel-specific flag and it roars
By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 10 February 2004, 15:37
THERE'S AN INTERESTING filing at the COMP.ARCH Usenet group which describes an experiment with an Intel compiler.
The person who posted the message said that he managed to tweak Intel's compiler to optimise an AMD FX51.
It took him a little bit of disassembly of the Intel-specific binary to get there, but once he'd disposed of a flag specific to its chips, he claimed that he ran a binary and got a 22% performance boost on the program.
greg s
I am debating the issues and like the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I remember not to long ago you were behaving the same way on the AMD board. Practice what you preach.
DougSF30
Your wasting your time on him. He is unwilling to admit Intel's blunders or give AMD any credit. Next thing he will be trying to say that Intel was behind X84-64. He will learn as will others that AMD is the better investment in 2004, but he won't realize it till AMD is trading as high or higher than Intel.
Tenchu,
I did listen to what you said but what you say assumes you are right, which you are not. I can find the diamond in the rough, you obviously are not able to do so. You just keep believing your Intel fanboy fantasy and I will remind you when the time comes later this year when I am vindicated by AMD's results.
Greg, don't worry I will remind you.
YTD AMD up .04 (+0.3%) Intel down 1.17 (-3.7%)
I guess the tide is changing, but then again AMD outperformed INTC last year also. AMD will likely see $30 to $40 in November while Intel might see $35 to $40. Smart money will be on AMD.
fin thanks for agreeing with me, your starting to catch on. Just make that final connection that AMD is the smaller company with the better product than Intel. Volumes continue to ramp which shoots wholes in your theories. I would be very scared for Q4 when AMD is likely to crossover to A64 as the volume product. Intel is going to get squeezed downward.
Tenchu
I guess I am going to have to dispell your IntelFanBoy fantasies. Intels earnings at the same time were only slightly over a dollar and no splits since then so your argument holds no water. I know more than you and I trade in and out of AMD stock so I am obviously wiser than you and most of the market. I guess it scares you that AMD could make $3 a share and Intel will be lucky if it could make half of that. Truly the only way to play Intel is to buy it cheap and that hasn't been the case since it was under $15. Face the facts that Intel can't get bigger, but AMD can and probably will thanks to Intel chips like Itanium and Prescott. So here's some advice, don't invest all your pennies in Intel, because if you do pennies is all you will have.
Tenchu, but Intel didn't make anywhere mear $3 EPS in 2000 AMD did. It's simple really. A smaller company with a better product has more to gain thatn a big company that has reached maiximum size.
Tenchu I was talking about 2000. Gordon made fun of the idea of AMD making $3 EPS in a year so I pointed him back to 2000 when Athlon was fominating P3 and AMD was rolling in cash. Which is what could happen if Prescott doesn't dramitically improve in thermals and performance. Next time read the previous post and you will be able to figure it out. And by the way AMD made (.79) last year. Intel's house of cards is swaying.
Gordon H think how hign AMD would trade on 2000 eps. Oh you don't like to think about that because that would mean Intel was stagnating and getting squeezed at the top. The reality is that Prescott in it's current form is a joke/pretender. Intel better get things much better with 775. If not Intel is going to see it's matgin's squeezed because it is clear that A64 beats any P4, and Opteron beats Xeon. And Itanium is a niche product at best that will never recoup it's costs estimated in the billions. Looks like Intel got lazy and hoped they could shmooze everyone into thinking there was no need for 64 bit in desktop, but folks are clamoring for it and AMd has it and Intel does not.
Elmer is that all you have?
I just reinstated you and this is the best you can come up with. Tell us how Intel is going to bring down those monsterous thermals on that underperforming dud Prescott, which by the way seems to be a phantom launch.
Why AMD Is Suddenly In the Chips
(A VERY interesting read!)
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforward/0,15704,587634,00.html
The perennial No. 2 microprocessor maker has created a chip so successful that it is forcing bigger players like Intel and HP to change strategies.
FORTUNE
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
By David Kirkpatrick
Advanced Micro Devices, the computer industry's spunky, pugnacious comeback kid, has had an amazing few weeks. On January 20 it announced that last year's fourth quarter was its first profitable one in over two years. Subsequent news underscores why.
AMD's unique 64-bit Opteron chip, its first-ever chip for servers, is becoming so successful so fast that it is forcing the industry's biggest players to change strategies. It's also allowing AMD to keep its average selling prices high despite the usual pressure from Intel. IBM and Sun are shipping servers with Opteron. Customer interest is growing quickly. And late last week bombshells emerged from both Hewlett-Packard and Intel, the two companies who partnered a decade ago to take another path toward 64-bit computing called Itanium. HP quietly confirmed that it is likely to soon start selling Opteron-based servers. Separately, Intel President Paul Otellini effectively announced that the chip giant will soon introduce chips mimicking AMD's approach. In both cases these are moves the two companies had long resisted and/or vowed not to make. It is by no means the kiss of death for Itanium, but rather a fabulous, though reluctant, endorsement of AMD's strategy on the part of both companies. Both clearly hate to take this path, but they hear what customers are saying and have no choice.
AMD's advantage is clear. Intel's mainstay processor chips for both desktop and server computers process data in chunks of 32 bits at a time. Itanium, intended for heavyweight corporate servers, digests 64 bits at once, but it doesn't run the same software as Intel's Xeon server chips, so users have to choose one platform or the other. AMD, by contrast, designed a way to add 64-bit capability to a 32-bit chip, so customers essentially got two for the price of one. They had a choice—they could run old applications the old way, but when they wanted to move to 64-bit software, they could simply add those applications on the same machines. In designing such chips, AMD also cleverly included a few features that make them extra-efficient, even for 32-bit applications. The strategy was AMD's first fundamental departure from its longtime path of simply offering a lower-priced version of Intel's X86 chips. But as always, AMD priced its chips below Intel's, even though this time those Intel chips were only 32-bit. In short, AMD offers more value for less money. [For more on the 64-bit wars, see my FORTUNE story from February 2003 called 'See This Chip?' at www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,418480,00.html.]
Itanium is making steady progress, but at the high end of the market. AMD is bringing 64-bit processing to the masses, and they seem to want it. (The company's similar chips for desktop computers are known as Athlon-64, and are also doing well.) Businesses and consumers stand to gain from the shift to 64-bit processing because 32-bit computers can't take advantage of more than 4 megabytes of memory at a time. But two important kinds of software can benefit from access to more memory—database-intensive applications for business, and for consumers, state-of-the-art games. Demand for the chips should only continue to grow, as Microsoft is expected to deliver a much-delayed 64-bit version of Windows for PCs and servers sometime in the third quarter of 2004.
The latest good news for AMD came on Tuesday, when the European Union approved a massive $682 million subsidy from the German government for a $2.4 billion factory the chipmaker is building in Dresden. Now AMD can afford to make the chips its customers appear to want.
Two weeks ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I spoke to AMD's upbeat CEO Hector Ruiz, who got the job only in April 2002 but has put an amazing stamp on the company in the short time since then. "We have never been in such a strong position," he told me in his low-key way. Ruiz was not only celebrating the developing success of his 64-bit chips, but the company's recently-won position as No. 1 in a crucial segment of high-end Flash memory chips. Ruiz crafted a joint venture with Fujitsu on Flash in which AMD owns 60%, so it can include the sales in its own numbers. AMD's success in these chips, which are critical for cellphones and other contemporary appliances, has come at Intel's expense as well. Intel was the leader in this kind of Flash a year ago. AMD's stock, by the way, has tripled since then.
For all of AMD's recent successes, its history suggests that future triumphs are not guaranteed. The relatively tiny $3.5-billion-in-revenues company has crept up on Intel before, only to be squashed by the $30 billion giant. Intel will likely do what it can, with pricing, promotions, and industrial muscle, to elbow AMD back into the world of losses, where it has been for most of its 30-plus-year history. Ruiz concedes that all those past disappointments represent "definitely a burden we're going to have to overcome," but he professes confidence.
He says when he joined AMD he found a company hugely talented in technology but sorely lacking in business discipline, "not just in manufacturing, but in terms of business objectives," he explains. "I said 'We've got this wonderful airplane but every time we go through turbulence everybody wants to change everything.'" He has focused especially on creating more discipline around costs.
This is probably AMD's make-or-break year. I hope they make it. For all Intel's wondrous abilities, it's nice to see a two-horse race.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kirkpatrick is senior editor for Internet and technology. E-mail him at dkirkpatrick@fortunemail.com
KeithDust2000
It means AMD will be able to sell more high end desktop chips because Intel isn't able to counter. This means ASP's are likely to improve overall for AMD in Q1.
Fingolfen more heresay from Intel backing websites
You still have not given facts supporting your case. Do me a favor, don't waste my time or yours reponding to my posts because you make the assumption that you have all the info when you have none from any unbiased entities. Go back to 2000 and you will see AMD made over $3 a share which was when Athlon was the rage. You are unable to deal with the reality that Intel will stagnate at best and it is quite likely AMD will eat their lunch.
fingolfen wheres your proof that Prescott will scale so well. You show none whatsoever. You hope that it scales better than Northwood but you are simply relying on Intel statements and your own hopes. And Prescott already has double the cache and it isn't helping any. As far as hyperthreading goes it hurts on certain benchmarks so I don't put much stock in it. Meanwhile you must sweat it out as AMD continues to ramp up A64 and Opteron. As Dell and others turn the screws on Intel to follow AMD's lead with X86-64. You must hope that Tejas is a big improvement over Prescott. The bottom line is Athlon 64 FX is the best desktop processor out there right now, and Opteron beats Xeon senseless, especially on 4 way systems. AMD holds the performance lead and whenevr AMD has held the performance lead they can control pricing, not Intel. Last time this was the case AMD made over $3 a share. Intel has no chance of making that kind of earnings. If AMD makes a smooth transition or even has .09 ready for Christmas/Q404, Intel is going to get squeezed hard on the high end as well as it's Zeon lines. And AMD is going to make a bundle. Cha-ching.
fingolfen I never said that Athlon MP was going to bring an end to Xeon, but Opteron is clearly superior and is going to make a major dent in the server business. Also realize that AMD has the headroom at .13 to stay ahead of Intel the rest of theyear since the best Intel will have by year end is a 4G Prescott, which I bet willbe a scorcher. As far as P4 being a dud what saved it was adding to cache. They can do that for Prescott also but it will make the chips bigger and as cache gets bigger, returns on it tend to decline. Plus the leakage problems will increase with more on chip cache using Intel's current process. As far as Celeron is concerned, nore and nore people are learning that this chip is a cripple. Celeron has a hard time competing with Durons which are 1G slower. People are getting smarter and Celeron will continue to lose traction.
The fact remains that Intel has issues with Prescotts running very hot, and the 3.4G Prescott won't even be available for at least another month when AMD's FX-53 will debut at 2.4G, ready to mop up on Prescott. Rememeber, AMD is taking away the high end from Intel and that will add significantly to AMD's ASP's which will allow AMD's profits to soar while Intel stagnates.
Tenchu Prescott costs more to make right now. Yields on new desighn and die shrinks are usually worse than what came before, plus the die of Prescott is only 15% smaller.
Intel sysytems with Prescott are going to also be pricier because motherboard makers are having to redisign their boards because the thermals on Prescott are much higher than originally expected. Also some chips won't run at full speed because of this according to reports. Sounds like Prescott is the problem child for Intel for the time being, to bad it can't even beat a similar clocked Northwood.
fingolfen thanks for making my point again
Let me make it simple for you, AMD had 2 hurdles (die shrink amd new design) to overcome and that is why Prescott is a disappointment. AMD only has to do a die shrink which they are working on. Thats why Prescott was delayed from October of last year till it's launch in February of this year. ANd as for Intel having done both already, I would say looking at Prescott so far they didn't do a very good job in terms of clockspeed, IPC, or thermals. For AMD to be as late as Intel on .09 they would have to be delayed into 2005 for launching .09 parts. As far as stock dilution I already spelled that out so you are just repeating me again. As far as Itanium is concerned, if you really had followed Intel Intel originally hoped to make Itanium the standard. But creating a new architecture and going away from the X86 instruction set has been a money losing failure, and now Intel must rush to get a 64 bit chip based on X86 out or face losses on the high end to AMD. As far as the Athlon MP having supposed to have been the killer of Xeon, no statement as to that ws ever made by AMD. AMd is in the drivers seat for the next 12 months at least so you need to get used to the idea that Intel screwed up.
fingolfen
You just illustrated my point. AMD only has to do a die shrink while Intel had to do a die shrink and a new design which is clearly more difficualt by your own admission. And the fact remains that Intel better work out the kniks quickly or AMD will continue raking more of the high end business. Int terms of AMD's debt you seem to forget that AMD's debt is convertible to stock, and will likely not be repaid, but will be converted to stock. This kills your idea that AMD is heavily leveraged. Throw in the fact that by the end of Q1 AMD will likely have over 1.5 billion in cash and I would say that further shoots wholes in your theory. AMD is in the drivers seat because everyone now knows Intel has to follow AMD on X86-64, and Itanic will be lucky to reamin a niche product. Intel spent billions on Itanium which they will never recoup. Meanwhile Xeon is getting taken to the cleaners by Opteron. This time AMD leads and Intel follows. If you don't see it that way I hope you aren't betting your life savings on Intel.
wmbz where do you get $6. I hope your not actually believing that Intel makes Prescotts for $6 while Northwoods cost $12 to make. Those numbers are so far from reality anyone who has ever seen the cost of wafers knows those numbers are false. The reality is it is more than likely that Prescott costs more to make because it is a new process and a die shrink, and die shrinks reduce yields. Plus the Prescott die is only 15% smaller than Northwood, so combined with poorer yields which are typical on a die shrink and/or a new design, there is little doubt that currently Prescotts are more expensive to make than Northwoods. Let's also not forget how hot these Prescotts are which is going to be a major problem going forward.
yourbankrupcy Prescott has little volume so far. Just look at prescott as a paper launch as is typical for intel. Intel knows they are losing the performance battle with AMD so they are stuck to do paper launches.
Dan3 his numbers are not to be taken seriously. To imply that Northwood costs $12 to make and Prescott $6 doesn't even cover the cost of silicon. Throw in things like plant and equipment, employees and their salaries and benefits, other overhead and marketing costs and you will get numbers that are more like 10 to 15 times that amount.
DougSF he's hoping Prescott can be cooled at 200+ watts. Because to get that chip to 7.5GHZ that chip is going to incinerate the motherboard. Prescott will never reach anywhere near that speed because it is just to hot.
Prescott at 7.5G and Itanium Ramping I Doubt
Itanium is going to die a slow death thanks to Intel hinting at an X86-64 chip in the offing. As far as 7.5GHZ for Prescott, it is safe to say that because of it's already sky high thermals, this chip will never see 7.5GHZ, it will be lucky to see 5GHZ if significant improvements are made. Intel should have tried to learn and use SOI.