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.
holding is what i am doing.
thanks for your suggestion.
gb
although amd always attempts to position their products against the top of the intel desktop performance line it frequently ends up squarely against celeron.
since amd has been unable to ramp 64bit volume (for whatever reason) it appears that the race actually begins when msft ships its 64bit desktop os.
i doubt that amd was hoping that intel would do a celeron64.
my expectation is that amd's asps will begin to sag once more. hector's good work in reducing their cost structure will help minimize losses however.
gb
you understand that if all amd gets is their "rock" that won't lead to additional mss and likely to reduced financial performance.
gb
now that you've had your "i told you so" do you have anything useful to add to an investment decision about intel?
gb
i do own intel shares...lots of them.
i'm quite satisfied with the current roadmap and its chances for increasing intel profitability.
and i see no issue with keeping competition in the dark.
gb
and i wonder how either it (32bit version) or the 64bit version will do facing celeron64?
history suggests anytime intel is able to position celeron against amd, celeron wins the volume inspite of benchmarks.
gb
i'm assuming from your posts that you're upset that intel has a product sooner than you expected. are you an intel investor or a disappointed amd investor? or invested in neither but merely a fan?
gb
joe
i'm interested in intel making a profit. if they have to change directions to do so, fine. what problem do you have with that?
gb
analyst replay up now. you can click on the individual presenters to get to their sections.
gb
i think that was me. oem products and their sales volume tell the story. not datasheet debates.
gb
i was struck by otellini's assertion that 64bits was to be in *all* the prescott die including those used for celeron. listen to this portion of his presentation to get the full effect.
seems 64bit won't be much of a premium sell for amd afterall...
gb
thunder:
also interesting is that it was built from standard components by a channel (i.e. distributor served) customer. not a tier1 oem.
it was stressed that the standards based approach to building this contributed to the huge cost savings.
gb
analyst meeting:
otellini just said that all prescotts (including celerons) will be capable of 64bit as soon as msft delivers later this year.
also all prescotts will have xd, the buffer overflow protection.
it's all in there already.
gb
New (to me) Centrino marketing bit:
Go to Yahoo Maps and put in some city. Look at the bottom of the map and you'll see a Centrino marketing Wi-Fi hotspot locator.
ql
gb
After watching the "discussion" on TDP and other power levels I'm left asking "what's the point?"
Tbe real issue is can you buy (not just imagine) a notebook with size, performance and battery life that makes the majority of potential mobile buyers happy.
So far Intel is well into the lead by that measure.
gb
never said it was a bad thing to do.
just thought it was the vehicle for 90nm soi.
apparently i was wrong...
gb
IBM Power5:
I thought the AMD supporters viewed Power5 as important for 90nm/SOI from IBM. This press release indicates that its SOI but 130nm...
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/altavista/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040503...
gb
i like the fact that for a given gain or beam width the antennas are quite small compared to the huge rooftop antennas of the 60's.
gb
smooth:
how do you see the two core approach being used by software?
will msft acquiesce to treating these with a consumer os and pricing or will they give them the "pro" treatment and pricing?
do you think a significant number of software vendors will find ways to exploit dp with threads with meaningful performance increases?
i'm mixed on this...
gb
ibm micro and other divisions don't always see eye to eye on product committments. i've been close enough to them through my previous relation as a vendor to see the interaction there. given the low volume on opteron so far i doubt that ibm micro would be considered a suitable vendor to the server or pc division.
further ibm micro usually wants open market rights for such a relationship either by agreement or weaseling around same. i doubt that amd would want ibm micro selling 64 bit chips in competition with them. it tears at the fabric of the foundry relationship. for example: who guarantees specs and provides design support when the ibm sold part doesn't work? certainly amd wouldn't want to take those calls and if the volume doesn't make it worth it ibm micro wouldn't want to put in their own packaging, test, qa and techsupport.
but strange things sometimes happen...
gb
Also note that AMD complained in their '03 annual report that a risk factor is that Intel "disciplines" AMD's potential customers. They've made this unsubstantiated claim for as long as I can remember.
gb
I found it interesting that they posted performance vs integrated but left integrated out of market share numbers.
gb
Beats me...
Perhaps they felt they didn't need any more clouds over Itanium regardless of potential outcome.
Or perhaps they saw something in the patent portfolio worth it.
Or some combination of the above along with something we don't know about.
gb
Well I was glad to see it settled. I was getting tired of seeing it pop up every few months. Bummed about the cost and the market reaction to it however. A oneshot payment and full licensing is a lot better than pecked to death by ducks however.
No idea if AMD would be covered by cross-licensing of Intel patents. Seems unlikely but stranger things have happened.
We could use some good news for a change. Not sure we'll get it on April 13.
gb
Now that INGR has settled with INTC, and since AMD is posting at least 1Q of profits, I wonder if INGR will pursue AMD.
Wouldn't make much sense to get a judgement against a company not posting a profit.
gb
I wondered about that too. I think the previous settlement covered the Pentium processor suit while the Itanium suit was separate.
ain't helpin' the stock...
gb
it was from the intel developer site. nothing insider or from the inq .
gb
i seem to remember that it has the pre-release of legrand as well as scan technology for testing. it's typical of intel to put prerelease stuff in n-1 for beta siting etc and make it the "new stuff" in generation n.
don't know about transistor count implications.
gb
the vast majority (put it at 99% of the market) never upgrades their cpu.
the money is made by serving the oems who need to know that when selling the latest and greatest cpu for extra bucks that they can use a platform that works with the old tech memory as well as in a new platform designed for the new memory.
and the new memory almost always requires a new board layout anyway.
gb
sgolds: thanks for the url. i was wondering whether the pin functions needed to be placed in different locations, i.e. on different sides of the package as was speculated, in order to achieve the flight times necessary for unregistered dual bank desktop designs.
it would help understand whether amd could use the same die to cover two different design points or whether they would need to manufacture specific chips for 939 and 940.
gb
Any news on the pinout? Were they able to keep it largely compatible with S940 or was it significantly changed to permit dual bank?
gb
if you design a memory control cell and get it wrong it's painful no matter where it lies. getting it wrong can be a function of changing memory specs, available memory parts not quite meeting spec, motherboard manufacturers being "creative" with their layouts. lots of reasons...
but if it's on a chipset and there are chipset choices available you can still ship your processor.
there are certainly tradeoffs for this safety net.
gb
it was meant for those who glibly state that all it takes is another level of metal or a simple spin, or ...
gb
all i can say is many of you folks have very little idea of how hard it is to do cutting edge integrated circuit design.
memory controllers that really work in a variety of layout conditions in multimillion unit volumes are very difficult to design.
gb
Petz: TLP
Of course no one wants to increase their software development costs unnecessarily but big gains in x86 instruction semantics regardless of 32 vs 64 bit are not in the offing. If one wants to write more capable software then exploitation of TLP will be necessary. Multiple processors, iHT or multiprocessor cores or combinations of all can provide a boost to software if it is properly architected.
gb
Petz
Intel sold millions of 80186, 80188 in NMOS and CMOS versions thereof for years. A few companies built "near compatible" machines in the early PC days before it became obvious that HW compatibilty was required.
gb
What hits me is that failure to make almost any of the milestones results in a failure to meet another covenant on another loan which continues to cascade through all of them. They even spell out such a scenario in one of the paragraphs.
It seems that the only thing that will save them if this occurs is the first lender continuing to throw a few more Euros into the pot in the hopes that they will continue to employ the few thousand or so citizens. A truely amazing amount of welfare money spent on such a small population. With all the moaning in Brussels about subsidies I'm surprised that this continues to go on.
Note that there were a few additional loans mentioned that were "off the books" per their own admission due to some accounting loopholes.
gb
I'm also surprised that they continue to list as a risk Intel's ability to "discipline" AMD's potential customers for doing business with them and doing so in a formal SEC filing.
They've never been able to prove any such claim yet they spout this infantile whining in a document meant to inform current and potential investors.
amazing...
gb
und: in any semi statement of risks section, (ti, intel, natsemi, linear tech...) there's mention of the technical and market risks. unique to amd's 10k is the complicated loan arrangements which have milestones that if not met cause the whole mess to potentially collapse.
i'm always surprised by their accusation in their 10k filings of intel "disciplining" their potential customers. why would any company make such libelous statements in an sec filing when *no* legal finding has ever been made. this might make fun reading at a webfan site but it can't make any investor feel good to read such infantile tantrums.
gb
reading the interlocking, interdependent loan stuff is torture.
gb