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.
There are 3 (not 2) flavors of mobile A64s. 2 of them have 1 meg of L2 cache. One is rated at 81.5W (the DTR mobile), the other at 62W (the mainstream mobile). I suspect the former is the one that has been shipping in HP notebooks, and the latter is the new part introduced today.
(There is a third category, which is the low power mobile parts of 35W, of which there are two representatives: te 2700+ and the 2800+. And of course, there are the desktop A64s at 89W.)
upc
According to the silicon investor thread, there has been a 3400+ mobile athlon 64 part shipping for some time now, but it was the Desktop Replacement cpu. Are you certain that the HP notebooks were not using that Desktop Replacement part? This new part apparently uses less power.
upc
Intel mobile chipset delayed.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040718/tech_intel_delay_1.html
Intel again delays introduction of a new chip
Sunday July 18, 10:57 pm ET
By Daniel Sorid
SAN FRANCISCO, July 18 (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News) will postpone the launch of a chip it has called "the linchpin" in its new line for notebook computers, a person with knowledge of the delay said on Sunday, its second notebook chip problem this year.
Computers with the chip, code-named Alviso, will not appear in stores until early in the first quarter of next year, missing a year-end target, the person said.
The delay is not expected to have a material financial impact on the world's largest chip maker, the person said. Still, the chip will miss the year-end surge in corporate technology spending and the winter holiday shopping season.
Unspecified technical and marketing issues caused the push-back of the chip, the person said.
Intel, based in Santa Clara, California, has faced several problems introducing new chips, to the delight of arch-rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (NYSE:AMD - News) Last week, Intel said a problem with a desktop computer chip had cost it $38 million.
It is also the second problem this year with Intel's chips for notebook computers, the fastest-growing segment of the personal computer industry. In January, Intel said it had to delay the launch of a new Pentium M microprocessor after discovering a problem in its design.
Alviso is a chip-set, a lesser-known but critically important sidekick to the microprocessor. The chip-set controls memory and peripherals and often powers a computer's video and audio capabilities.
In February, Intel Vice President Anand Chandrasekher said Intel was "very confident at this stage" about Alviso, which was slated for delivery in the second half of the year.
The chip, he said, had more powerful audio and video capabilities and was "the linchpin in the Sonoma platform," Intel's new line-up of mobile computer products.
Intel spokesman Tom Beermann said he would "rather not comment" about the timing of the chip's introduction, but added that "quality and customer concerns are paramount" at Intel.
upc
There's nothing quite like deleting whole articles instead of issuing a correction. That individual has some serious issues to work through.
upc
Funny, his site is still completely down. He also sounds generally bitter and angry about almost everything out there. Do you happen to know why he is so angry?
upc
His site appears to be completely down now. Maybe he was concerned about being sued by AMD for his false statements about their 90nm plans? Did you email him about his huge mistake?
upc
Looks like XP PR + 100 to me while the K7 Sempron is XP PR - 300
That doesn't make sense because AMD will want a self-consistent rating scale across the Sempron line, so I would guess that some of the assumptions must be incorrect. Perhaps the clock rate you are assuming for the K8 3100+ Sempron is too high?
upc
the 90nm crossover may have been moved 1 to 2 quarters out, or it may not have been moved. There are many kinds of crossovers, and it is not clear that the two references, this CC and the last one, referred to the same kind. They reiterated guidance that 90nm parts will ship for revenue this quarter, but there are also the comments of the CFO in early June which were more specific and mentioned a "july timeframe". On the other hand, the CFO implied starts would be in April on March 1 and they ended up starting in early May. Hector referred to May as the start of "volume production on 90nm" during this CC.
upc
I'm not sure that the mass market pays much attention to benchmarks, so as long as the rating is broadly fair it should be fine. It didn't seem to hurt Intel much that their old Celerons were grossly over-"rated", for example.
upc
on #4 the worst that could be said is that 90nm crossover moved from Q4/Q1 to Q2, not Q4 to Q2. Based on the posts on the silicon investor thread, the language is vague, and so it is difficult to know if the previous reference to crossover refered to the same thing as the recent reference. Here I mean starts versus output versus sales.
upc
they did not say moderately better than seasonality. They said moderately better, period. When asked about normal seasonality they said 7-9%, and when an analyst suggested 'moderately better' implied below-seasonality, they said that interpretation was incorrect.
upc
At some point I think one has to assume that management will try to do the best thing here. I think they would not want to waste too much 130nm SOI space on K8 value parts quite yet. You say "devalue the K7 rating reputation", but another interpretation is really the opposite since the rating system has been devaluing K7 performance against Celeron. I do agree that having two styles of ____+ ratings is confusing, and think they should copy the Intel 300-series names.
upc
That's what I was remembering although I suppose there was an argument made about a K8 core derivative on socket A which seemed unlikely to me at the time, because of all the work to undo the memory controller on die in the normal K8 core. That is an interesting list, together with the story about only XP 2800+, 3000+ and 3200+ existing once these Semprons are launched, and of course the 2800+ XP rating is not the same performance (it is better) than the Sempron 2800+, due to the Celeron / Prescott performance differences at similar clocks.
upc
where do you see the intergraph charge in the Q1 10-Q? thank you, I am trying to find it, and this would mean that 13M net negative change in the Q2 other income category is not yet explained.
Nevermind, I found it.
upc
I don't think asps are likely to decline further overall because if that was likely i think they would have at best called for stable asps rather than forecasting them to be up in Q3 as they did.
upc
Isn't it acknowledged that Sempron is going to have both K7 and K8 parts making up its offerings, at least at first?
upc
I've been reading the thread on silicon investor and some of you here may be interested in the evolving consensus about AMD's Q2 earnings. If I interpret things correctly, it seems that based on the two core businesses themselves, net income would have been up 10M dollars compared to Q1. That breaks down to a gain of 20M in flash, but a loss of 10M in processors. But instead of adding 0.03 to the Q1 earnings of 0.12, the earnings went down 0.03. The explanation seems to be this: A charge of 10M dollars to settle the intergraph patent suit, and 10M dollars of higher losses in the other division. But it seems that division is not just a division, but is where they put all the bonus payments and profit sharing.
upc
or unless ASPs are not going to head south in dramatic fashion, which would seem to be what Intel indicated on the call. they apparently said they were not interested in any price war with AMD because cutting prices would not sell more product, so they claimed. 32bit K8 is about marketing segmentation, protecting premium brand, and providing a lower end option for OEMs shipping socket 754-based systems. I believe that HP already does this in their notebooks.
upc
on the 3M server cpus versus 2M server cpus (per quarter), is that because the x86 server market has grown 50% in the last X years? Is there any repository of historical x86 server cpu market size information you have a link to? I have noticed that Xeon prices appear to be much cheaper than I remember them, but I have not verified my impression with any hard data gathering.
thank you
upc
I think that perhaps mmoy may have been suggesting that in the december timeframe mentioned for the new HP 300-series Opteron servers, Sun will have been able to roll out some of their home-designed servers, which should be much more competitive than the newisys/celestica kit they are selling now. These machines might have the serverworks chipset they are having developed, as well as a design by bechtolsheim. It is true that as of right now, they are not a very big player in this space, but they have articulated publicly that this is their strategy, so I would not count them out just yet.
upc
gb, intel had a history of dropping prices on certain areas to attack amd while maintaining prices in other areas that amd was not in, in order to maintain margins. Intel's customer is not the consumer, but the OEMs, who are in a low-margin business. They might consider $20-$30 a worthwhile amount, so the question is, why will Intel not pursue this tactic now? I do not think the answer is truly 'inelastic demand'. But I sold my Intel investment today after reading the news about GMs in the earnings release, and I think GM pressure is probably the real answer to the question of 'why no price war?'.
upc
otellini responded to a question to that effect and said all parts of the market are served and that moving price wouldn't help units move any faster being basically inelastic.
That's a fishy explanation and it sounds like spin to cover a real reason. After all, Intel dropped prices in the past. Why has demand suddenly become inelastic with respect to price? Isn't the real reason more likely to be: Intel is worried about GMs, and AMD is still relatively supply-constrained until Fab 36 comes on line. Therefore better to keep prices high and let AMD supply what they can.
upc
I sold all my Intel A/H. GMs lowered 2 points for 2004. That was the warning signal advocated by some here. Thanks for the advice.
upc
That's the problem with having one brand and one rating system going up against a competitor with two brands and two rating systems. I say two, because clockspeed meant two very different things depending on whether it was a Celeron or a P4, although there was an issue, because many consumers did not realize it amounted to two systems. But with Intel's new model number system, they have fixed that issue for themselves (celeron cannibalizing P4) and AMD (celeronization of XP), if only AMD will take the one additional step that they are in fact doing. For no one will confuse a 320 with a 520, so AMD should label Semprons to reflect performance versus the 300 series, whether by giving an appropriate PR that reflects equivalent 300-series part clockspeed or preferably completely copying the Intel naming scheme.
upc
The XP ended up at price parity with Celeron precisely because its ratings are not designed to be compared to Celeron, and are therefore much too low. The mass consumer sees a 2.8 GHz Celeron and a 2800+ XP and thinks they perform the same. Retail buying decisions are not clinched by benchmarks for the vast majority of mid to low-end consumers. They look at the "name" of each part, its clockspeed or performance rating. So gaining 300 PR points should help prices, not hurt them. The whole reason for Sempron is to allow them to have a different rating system that addresses the competitive product, Celeron.
upc
I don't think the + is really meant to convey any serious amount of padding. If you can make higher clockspeeds, then you should release parts with higher ratings, and corresponding higher prices, not inflate the ratings. I would agree with you that the ratings should not be overly aggressive, and that most reviewers should concede that they are at least fair. But beyond that, it does not make sense to pad PR numbers meant to be interpreted by a mass consumer.
upc
I don't follow your argument. Shouldn't the model or PR rating or whatever aim for accuracy? If there is an Intel brand advantage, which there is, why shouldn't that be countered with pricing, rather than making the performance rating inaccurate and extra-generous? If you pad the performance rating, you run the risk that the mass consumer will take you at your word and also expect a price discount. Otherwise, what is the point of the PR ratings? A very informed customer doesn't need them, because they will have researched the benchmarks. An ignorant customer will assume they are accurate, so you gain nothing from padding. I will grant perhaps some word of mouth stuff, but I would still think the right strategy is accurate ratings with whatever pricing discount is necessary to counter brand advantage.
upc
Now Lehman downgrades Q3 and Q4 earnings.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040706/tech_intel_research1_1.html
Is management telling these guys something? To me the Grantsdale glitch reasoning is starting to sound like an excuse for some other sort of more general problem.
upc
I'm not sure that I follow you on this. That article said that Intel was getting rid of dealer rebates. That is not cutting prices but cutting costs (and passing them on to the dealers). In fact this might cause dealers to raise prices and therefore ship less than they would otherwise. What am I missing here?
Thank you.
upc
My interpretation of this article: Intel Q3 GMs are under pressure and they are trying to hold them up.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17025
Title is "Intel to cut reseller desktop CPU rebates in August". I would appreciate thoughts from wbmw, etc.
Thank you.
upc
Is this computer going to be your kid's primary computer? In that case you probably do not want a thin and light but something midweight with more functionality. Intel still dominates this segment (as well as thin and light) with Pentium M offerings but if you want AMD64 then I think you want to look for a notebook with a 2700+ or 2800+ low power mobile athlon64.
Here is an expensive (but good) example of such a notebook.
http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs.php/masterid=2651448
upc
Thank you.
upc
Oh great. A downgrade is not something I was looking for. And at these levels as well.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ud?s=INTC
Does anyone think it is worth holding on for late this year early next? My holdings are long term already so that is not an issue.
Thank you.
upc
Thanks for the information about Edelstone. That makes me a bit less concerned.
upc
This is not good, if it is true.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=1&u=/nm/20040701/bs_nm/markets_sto...
There's a part in the middle about Intel being likely to give bad Q3 guidance.
" On a Morgan Stanley internal call this morning, analyst Mark Edelstone said he believed that the midpoint of Intel's third-quarter revenue outlook, which will be announced when the technology bellwether reports earnings on July 13, could be below analysts' estimates, according to people familiar with what was said on the call. Edelstone's office declined to comment."
upc
morrowinder, I agree but it is unfortunate that it is Intel based laptops that are affected. I do have to say that it does seem strange that many different modules from different manufacturers would all have a circuit design flaw.
upc
Another article says HP will send out replacement memory modules to consumers. This is better than having to return a notebook. here is a link.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5248097.html
upc
morrowinder, that just means the HP notebook recall is not related to the Grantsdale problem. That is true. But the HP notebook recall is only for Intel laptops, and the article said other OEM will face the same problem.
Is there any way to know what memory is used in Dell notebooks? I hope it is not the same kind.
upc
Another recall? I'm reading news about 900,000 Intel-based laptops being recalled by HP because the memory doesn't work right with Intel chipset power saving features. And HP says this will apply to other OEMs as well. Just what we needed. The news is on top of the Yahoo news listing for Intel.
upc
Here is another recall story.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=1&u=/nm/20040625/tc_nm/tech_intel_...
I did not make anything up.
upc