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.
When I installed the Win 8 consumer test release I had to install it to a second partition on my hard drive. As far as I know since Vista Microsoft hasn't allowed multiple OSs in a single partition. With Win 7 running on the C drive Win 8 installed fine on the D drive and installed boot manager so you could choose either one when you first booted.
This response is particularly funny.
This comment "In other words ATI has the expertise and relations to know what's inside small stuff." is your response to the question about AMD/ATI and dsp experience. Is small stuff your answer?
Re: AMD was willing to take more risks = you should learn that this is normal behavior for a follower type comepetitor as just doing as well as the accepted leader doesn't mean much. As with the laughable rush to 64 bit it seems that today very few non server environments are being overwhelmed by users demanding 64 bit processing.
If I remember correctly on some other message board you acknowledged being a CS major student and that is clearly what you sound like and what your argument level indicates. You may do well as you learn but your over your head here.
The short answer if you can hear it is that when you are a second level supplier like AMD has been since the mid 80s you need something on the order of 50% better performance than the leading supplier for something on the order of 5 years at the same price if you really think you are going to be accepted as the equivalent or replacement supplier.
While your crafting your reply please show link that indicate Intel expected Atom to be used in cell phones.
why not just mention fdiv bug that had almost no effect. while you are at please point out the K5 that did so well that buying the Nexgen was the only salvation.
in addition tell us what wrong with "fardball" marketing
Seems like you forgot that maybe the king will die
I can only address your first question since this type of response tends to show a lack of understanding of historical precedent.
Over at least a 20 year period AMD products have been available in an ecosystem that has produced a reputation of being mostly ok but failing to be anywhere in the ballpark of Intel products in terms of reliability, not to mention generally performing in a poorer fashion.
The K8 in combination with Intel's attempt to make a major jump with the P4 design failing has produced a so far one time period when an AMD product consistently out performed products available from Intel.
While many refer to pro AMD posters as supporters of AMD it is far more likely they are people with an anti Intel bent.
When you understand that the reason most consumers will pay more for an Intel processor is the same time when you will notice that Avis has been number 2 for years for a reason and it isn't because the cars are similar in terms of being able to be driven.
Actually the sentence should read Intel has owned the notebook market ever since it became a market. Banias only makes true ownership more defined.
Go to newegg and buy whatever quantity you want of these mpuw. There is no shortage.
Actually you and I are not disagreeing. AMD has made some strides and I would not be shocked to see them achieve 10% of the server market by year end. For AMD this would be spectacular. I think it shows they have done a great job. My argument has always been with the "now they are taking over the world" crowd not with people like you.
Sorry if this sounds condicenting but have you been watching the market for the last two weeks. Since the end of the 80s this point of view has been being preached and to date it has had no impact.
Tiger
If you pay attention to Pete as a source there is little hope for you.
Dead wrong and you are too smart to pretend otherwise. There is little or no evidence that as a single processor Opteron is superior to Xeon or P4 EE
Now unlike your previous post you are being silly. The market has already said how many A64 chips it wants. Producing 3 times as many would just lead to a huge inventory problem.
Tiger
Not sure how you read the sited post and interpreted it. The market today is saying thank you AMD but we only want as many mpus as you are producing, not more. If AMD doubled production they would just have many more mpus in the warehouse.
From a financial point of view it would make sense for both companies to behave exactly as you have described. At this moment in time the market seems willing to buy the present ratio of products from both companies and if this continues both companies could make good money. It really isn't that unusual for a market with a few competitors to wake up to the foolishness of price wars and realize that with a little thinking recognize that both will make money without trying to kill each other. One on jsiii s problems was thinking he could fight intel on price but your suggestion makes infinitely more sense.
My goodness a matter of perspective certianly describes it. It is just a question on whose perspective makes sense.
It is interesting you compare Itanium to the Ibm mainframe which has enjoyed a 30% increase in the last quarter and in fact represents all of IBM's server revenue increase in the last quarter. At present if anything it looks like the enterprise has recognized the value of large scale system to manage important corporate data rather than multiple little systems tied together through ht as the better way to manage corporate data.
The we graduate to Intel's evil and stupid approach even though they have led the market in volume and dollars by laughable amounts for at least a decade. Of course none of the efforts they made to achieve this position was aimed at providing what the customer wanted but only what Intel crammed down their gulllets.
Then there is the P4. Are you really Van Smith posting under a different name. The P4 is argueably the best processor they have produced to date. It certainly outdid the competition and if Intel really wanted to they could have closed AMD with just a small price war. As it is customers have indicated they would rather pay a higher price for celeron than for xp despite xp's better performance. The P4 walked away from the athlon laughing. Even AMD fans admitted to performance numbering from 2800 up were a joke.
Now you have a brief respite with K8 having an odmc giving it all of its performance advantage and you have AMD ruling the world.
Nocona will offer 64 bit server chip capability and the idea that customers will desert in droves to AMD is a wet dream. Wake up , you have to be smarter than that.
I respect that as an example of your site. The discussion was based on how x86 server sales are computed and that is where I got the information that most were single mpu systems.
Tiger
All info so far is that A64 is demand constrained meaning they can make as many as people are willing to buy. If they had 3 times as many chips they would need a bigger warehouse because demand constrained means there are as many bought as people want. If your family can only eat one loaf of bread a day then if I offer you 3 what difference does it make.
Hold on Comb. If single x86 mpu machines make up the majority of server sales why would I need to revise my opinion. I certainly have zero impact on whoever determines what an x86 server is.
Paul I'm sure you had a chance to see "DARBES" previous comment. This continues to prove my point about many of the posters to this board though I am aware darbes is from si.
My understanding is the 80% or more of the x86 server market it single mpus. I have obtained this information from reading market share reviews over many years. It actually makes sense because up to now x86 machines were used for the most mundane tasks. That isn't to say the machines couldn't do more but that is they way they have been used. It is one of the reasons they can make up 90% of the server units but only about 50% of the revenue. Given these numbers I can't see 2 or even more significantly 4 way x86 servers making up a large share of the x86 server market. It is quite possible I am wrong as I often am but these were the numbers I thought were the most current. I would like to be seen as someone with no axe to grind re AMD and Intel but as you yourself, one of the more moderate posters have observed, it seems that moon shot darbes represents a bigger share of the posters.
It still surprises me that so little investment information appears on an investment board.
I know you know a lot about servers and have a lot of experience with Opteron. Given I accept this level of sophistication I cede to you how can you in good conscience make statements implying major shifts in server market share. Opteron is a great processor for 2 and 4 way systems. These make up maybe 20% of x86 server sales. Not everyone will buy them because the Intel products will meet their needs. Why would you believe the world will follow your love affair with Opty? Not criticizing the capabilities of he chip but the willingness of the whole market to recognize what you do.
As much thought as seem to give your posts how can you post such silly comments. There is no evidence that AMD is doing very well and Intel is in deep doodoo regardless of the present advantage A64 offers over Prescott, none. Yet you go on and on about Intel's screwups.
In my opinion Intel moving to model numbers much like AMD did with Opteron does not mean either company is going to stop increasing chip speed. So I would expect a 5 gig Prescott would have some appropriate model number in their scheme if they stick with it. My numbers were just pulled out of the air but my real question is in effect what if in six to 12 months Intel comes up with a solution that exceeds the A64 performance?
The general tone of some of the posters is A64 represents some sort of inflection point and that Intel is very likely to be damaged severly in just the next few months to a year. I think A64 is an excellent chip but as yet see no concrete reasons that Intel is terribly threatened.
I actually agree with you that with K7 and K8 AMD has become a viable competitor and I think that has value to the market in general. I get tired of the posts about some advantage of one or the other meaning the mpu world will change.
By any chance do you know how on ihub I can change my name to my real name and login as such. This is the only board on which I use a handle and frankly I feel foolish using one.
Thanks
I'm not questioning your point that the designers may have been going down the wrong path. My point is that suppose at 65nm Precott blossoms to 5+ ghz at 83 watts, what happens to K8. Right now everyone is giving credit to k8 and low power but it for some reason Prescott changed that at 65nm what would be your response?
Comb
Actually I think Banias was designed to be what it was. On the other hand there is no reason that Dothan with an odmc and a fat fpu should have that much trouble with Opteron.
Maybe Prescott doesn't come into it's own until 65nm. On the surface there is no real reason to think K8's current success is anything but temporary.
What surprises me in reading the comments of many AMD supporters is the acceptance the despite Intel's history it should be expected to collapse in the face of a minor competitor.
These sorts of comments seem to fit with the same types of comments regarding the stupidity of the buying public.
None of the above appears to track with your apparent level of understanding and awareness so I am at a loss to the reasoning your using.
Most of your posts seem very sharp to me even if I disagree with your conclusions.
Could you point to any marketshare gains by AMD in any area or any volume or financial points that support your last comments?
I'm interested in how much power you think 1.8 P4 M machines put out. I've used a dell 1.8 for more than a year. 90% of the time it is plugged into the charger. I set it on a 2 inch cd case that sits on my right let. The fan components are on the left side and are exposed to ambient air. Room temp runs about 76 to77 degreesF. The fan runs intermittently and the warmth of the unit is much greater when I leave the battery charger connected.
In the 18 months I've use the system I've found not issues of excessive heat so I wouldn't expect a 2.8 or 3.06 to be very different. I guess i just don't understand why you think the Dell systems run so warm.
To me it doesn't appear that only Hector and Barrett are saying these things. I'm reading about surpluses in lcd screens, hds and wireless equipment. Right not if you want to go wireless the G stuff is practically being given away. I do a lot of wireless business installations and you can buy wireless G Netgear and others routers for 20 bucks after rebate. These are the things that make me feel the overall market is a lot softer than we expected.
Did it mention anywhere in the Anandtech article where they got the data. I read it 3 times and must have missed it if they did. The current server roadmap on Intel.com still shows 1.7
I have loved your little logo for ever since you started using it.
No I didn't really think you thought that, I probably should have put a ) at the end. Virtually the same thing I posted on the AMD board brought a powerful response.
Thanks for that level of explaination. It should help get a better grasp on what sometimes seem like simple explainations. It looks to me like AMD K8 will keep the performance crown for a while but I worry that the customer base, at least the ones I provide product for, seem less interested than in the past in buying the higher level product at least on the desktop side. Many seem to have realized that medium level machines are more than adequate for anything they have to do. Seems like MS and the app vendors haven't been bloating their code as fast as they used to.
I know nothing about how fab transition goes but from reading many posts I would expect fab 30 could be transitioned. My question would be since Intel seems to be moving thier entire line including Celerons to 64 bit where is the advantage for AMD. It continues to appear to me that the on die memory controller is a much bigger advantage and one Intel doesn't seems to be pursueing.
That is always the problem. If 90nm works great they have an advantage but you have to realize that for AMD to make serious progress against Intel they have to outperform for years not quarters. The K7 had an advantage over P4 for something like a year or year and a half but when the P4 blew it away the marketshare flopped to 15%. AMD needs to outperform Intel in a serious fashion for a long time and so far they haven't shown they can do that.
Didn't AMD make a comment in their 10K about an inventory build up a month or two ago. I'm not saying Intel can't he having a problem all of it's own only that other vendors have remarked on disappointments with results for the last couple of month.
Thank you for the civil reply. My own first attempts at comments for some people are probably over the edge.
I think the AMD product line with regard to server and desktop machines is the best they have ever offered. My own in stock toys inculude a 3000+ a64 that runs rock solid at 2.3 on my new nforce 250 m/b as well at a 2500+ that runs stock voltage at 3200+ and a 2500+ that can be forced to do that at 1.85v. The P4s include a 2.6 HT that runs 3.4 and 2 2.4 D stepping P4s that will run all day long at 3200 with 133 fsb.
I really did lust for access to the funds I got this year during the last year because it looked to me that AMD was going to offer a fantastic increase relative to the rest of the market. Access to the funds came too late and I now think that investment in either of the two mpu vendors is not much of a sure thing. I think they both face the fact that on the desktop people already realize that they don't need anything like the top end. I think thier products in that area are becoming a commondity except to a few junkies like me that will do what they can to have the hottest thing around even if I don't use the capabilities.
My impression of your evaluations of Intel's choices indicate to me a lack of understanding of Intel's historic situation. Decisions in the mpu design market are made so far in advance of delivery that i feel it is almost inevitable many wrong ones will be made. On the other hand I think that the Opteron outperforming the current Xeon in some areas is being overblown. For a company like AMD to have a serious impact on Intel it will take dramatically better performance over a period of years, not superiority in some areas that could be broken in months. I've been involved and in fact bought the first 3 IBM pcs from Computerland in 1982. To illustrate my lack of foresight I didn't recognize that using these machines to run my the current business could have made me a fortune at the time just by offering my software and hardware to competitors.
As far as the moniker remember I use it to post on what is supposed to be an investors board but seems dominated by techs trying to prove who has the bigger one. The ratio of investment ideas to fights over performance issues has got to be 10 to 1 if not more thus in this case I am confused.
Thank you for the response.
Actually for most of last year I wished I had the funds I knew would become available soon because I saw AMD as a stock with great potential. Unfortunately for me they became available about the early part of March 04. By that time the chance to make serious money in AMD seems to have walked away.
Your posts have so many comments that are negative about Intel that they draw attention from that fact alone. Given your complete understanding of what should be done I can't understand why Intel has ignored you as the obvious solution to their corporate stupidity. But never mind that stuff just be prepared for the fact that if Intel tells you the market is soft is isn't because AMD is beating them to death. AMD represents 15% of the market. They have had no serious shortages of product so it is not as if the market is begging to buy thier products. Go ahead and bookmark this as a statement that AMD may show a loss for q3 just because the market is that bad. Do they have a good product line up - absolutely. Will that matter if the market is in a trough - no.
Once again someone who mocks a person on the basis of their posting name shows their true level of knowledge. I use the term on IH because though it alleges to be an investement board it shows itself to be mostly tech contributors engaged in mine is bigger than yours contests.
You don't seriously think the AMD is going to do well when Intel and the rest of the industry is saying things suck. AMD has had no product shortages and the clan uses the phrase "demand limited" to say that not enough people are interested in buying AMD products at the moment. If Intel is saying things are not good then be prepared for the excuses as to why AMD may have a loss for q3.
Please site evidence of your statements that AMD is taking market share.
Having read many of your posts it seems like you live in a dream world. If Intel is seeing reduced demand for mpus then you can bet AMD is seeing the same thing. Right now AMD has a high end advantage and in the server space Opteron enjoys some benefits in 2 and 4 way configs. Dell enjoying record volumes would argue that your hopes about Prescott power consumption being a big problem is a wish and not a fact.
Come back with something of substance if AMD improves it's market share or makes any real money. So far you sound like the K7 crowd that saw Intel leaving the market for mpus because for a few months the K7 outperformed the P4. Keep in mind the P4 blew the K7 away and the K8 has marginal performance benefits.
If sales soften enough in the industry this result would not be at all impossible. If you read the AMD 10K they indicated that they backloaded thier payment requirements to IBM to hit harder in q3 and q4. As yet there is no indication that AMD is doing any better than Intel in overall sales but a miss of 50 to 100 million in mpu sales wouldn't have any problem with wipeing out a few cents in profit.
If I remember correctly you were one of the folks that liked the cheap shot approach to my user name so forgive me if I don't give as much credibility to your posts as I might from some others.
Perhaps Hector's comments the other day are designed to cushion the fact that there may not be a profit for AMD in Q3. Intel's results seem to show the direction of the market so unless everyone has started buying AMD mpus - availability or all of their products has been sufficient with a few rare cases - then Intel's comments indicate the general state of the market.