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.
Hey, if you consider the various Intel claims and timelines in its earnings release to be "no data", who am I to argue with you? :)
Yuri/conductor
the AMD way, not Intel's.
And the P4 EE was released because... ?
Yep Osha is right on top of things.
Well, at least a small typo isn't as bad as those infamous predictions by that Paul DeMone character.
He was completely wrong about Prescott IPC, Prescott scaling, K8 performance, and IPF success.
That's why he's become something of a laughing stock these days.
Yuri/conductor
Your data provides ZERO support for not simply releasing a few 4GHz parts to save Otellini's reputation. Zero.
Yuri/conductor
so how much PR damage do you really think it is to miss 4GHz
A lot.
when the flip-side of the decision is to have a more competitive dual core product in the following year?
Don't tell me you actually fell for that part of the announcement?
Otellini: F**k! We can't get to 4GHz?!?! And now I have to tell the world that!
PR flack: I know! Tell them that because we won't TRY to reach 4GHz, we can... uh... redeploy resources... to... uh... get to dual cores faster!!! How about that?
Otellini: What kind of moron would believe that rubbish??? Wait... maybe you're right...
Smooth, sorry, but Yonah requires 65nm. If you bothered to read the Intel earnings release, you'd see that Intel won't be running 65nm in volume until 2006. And given Intel's recent history with deadlines, Q1 06 may prove optimistic.
Intel will probably manage their dual-die Prescott furnace in late Q3 or Q4 05, but who'll want those?
Yuri/conductor
Wise words for Intel investors from Morgan Stanley:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4299005
And ML:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4299229
Yuri/conductor
You think Intel could release 4GHz parts, but is instead using those same parts to make dual core chips?
And in the process, sacrificing their own credibility, especially that of the CEO-in-waiting?
That's just silly. If Intel had ANY way of producing 4GHz parts, they would, in order to avoid the PR they generated this evening, and the lingering damage to their credibility.
Yuri/conductor
If you believe that quotations from an Intel marketing hack are "facts", well, then...suit yourself! :)
Yuri/conductor
Semicon made the claim. You just jumped in with a personal attack in support.
Yuri/conductor
It certainly is material to the guidance and future prospects of the company. The excuses are flying today over here! :)
Yuri/conductor
"quiet period" is such an excuse. But it should have been in the earnings release at the very latest, and discussed at the CC. By hiding the bad news until after the CC, they undermine their credibility with Wall Street.
Yuri/conductor
I think Intel is abandoning 4GHz in order to use the higher grade parts to make dual core chips.
I nominate this as Rationalization of the Year.
Yuri/conductor
LOL! Now that Intel can't produce a 4GHz part, "it's not a race."
And still you can only pretend I am some other poster in response. Just like gregs and others!
HA HA HA.
Yuri/conductor
Why did Intel not announce the 4GHz failure in time for their earnings CC?
Yuri/conductor
and still be able to get >3GHz frequencies with power envelopes not much higher than current Prescott.
You're still dreaming. Much like the 4.4 GHz Prescott, this will not come to pass either.
Yuri/conductor
Intel backs off on dual-core timeline.
2005 is just "a goal" now.
It will also increase development efforts on dual-core chips with the goal of a 2005 release.
Yuri/conductor
Intel Cancels Planned Highest-Speed Pentium 4 Chip
Thu Oct 14, 2004 02:48 PM ET
By Daniel Sorid
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) on Thursday canceled plans to introduce its highest-speed Pentium 4 chip for desktop computers, marking another in a string of unexpected product changes, cancellations and recalls at the world's largest chip maker.
Intel, whose shares fell 2.4 percent, said it plans to move engineers and other resources to accelerate the introduction of "dual core" chips, which contain two microprocessors in a single chip. The Santa Clara, California-based company has said it plans to introduce dual-core chips for desktops, servers and notebooks sometime next year.
"It's not an easy decision to walk away from four gigahertz because we had a public position, but in our view for Intel and for our customers it's the right decision," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said, referring to the speed of what was to be the fastest Pentium 4.
The product cancellation adds to an already bumpy year for Intel, which delayed a new line of notebook computer chips in January, recalled a desktop computer chip in June, and pushed back another notebook computer chip in July.
Chief Executive Craig Barrett sent a stern memo to Intel's 80,000 employees in July after the setbacks -- weeks before another delay, this time of a chip for rear-projection televisions.
Cranking up the speed of its Pentium 4 chips to four gigahertz, or billions of cycles per second, has been an elusive goal for Intel. When the latest rendition of the Pentium 4 was introduced in February, Intel said it would reach the 4 gigahertz speed by the end of the year.
In July, citing concerns about having enough supply to meet customer demand, Intel delayed plans for four gigahertz until the end of March 2005. Thursday's announcement puts an end to the goal entirely, at least for the current processor generation.
Both Intel and its arch-rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , have shifted their focus from increasing clock speed -- a measure of how fast a chip can crunch numbers -- to a vaguer notion of performance encompassing multi-tasking, security, and multimedia.
The chip industry's own technologists have long predicted that engineers would face bigger and bigger hurdles as they cranked up chip speeds. Intel Chief Technology Officer Patrick Gelsinger has famously said that without a fundamental change in chip design, PC chips would become as hot as the surface of the sun within a decade.
Shares of Intel fell 50 cents to $20.49 in afternoon trade on Nasdaq.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=6504970
Chipguy, semicon:
Looks like you get to eat crow about how your vast experience gave you more insight into the 90nm process maturity levels and its implications for Prescott clockspeeds, doesn't it?
Here's another report:
(Notice the laugh-line about Prescott 4GHz previously being scheduled for March 05. Is that Intel's position now? Does that mean they were lying when they said they would ship in Q4 for launch in early Q1?)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=6504970
Intel Cancels Planned Highest-Speed Pentium 4 Chip
Thu Oct 14, 2004 02:48 PM ET
By Daniel Sorid
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) on Thursday canceled plans to introduce its highest-speed Pentium 4 chip for desktop computers, marking another in a string of unexpected product changes, cancellations and recalls at the world's largest chip maker.
Intel, whose shares fell 2.4 percent, said it plans to move engineers and other resources to accelerate the introduction of "dual core" chips, which contain two microprocessors in a single chip. The Santa Clara, California-based company has said it plans to introduce dual-core chips for desktops, servers and notebooks sometime next year.
"It's not an easy decision to walk away from four gigahertz because we had a public position, but in our view for Intel and for our customers it's the right decision," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said, referring to the speed of what was to be the fastest Pentium 4.
The product cancellation adds to an already bumpy year for Intel, which delayed a new line of notebook computer chips in January, recalled a desktop computer chip in June, and pushed back another notebook computer chip in July.
Chief Executive Craig Barrett sent a stern memo to Intel's 80,000 employees in July after the setbacks -- weeks before another delay, this time of a chip for rear-projection televisions.
Cranking up the speed of its Pentium 4 chips to four gigahertz, or billions of cycles per second, has been an elusive goal for Intel. When the latest rendition of the Pentium 4 was introduced in February, Intel said it would reach the 4 gigahertz speed by the end of the year.
In July, citing concerns about having enough supply to meet customer demand, Intel delayed plans for four gigahertz until the end of March 2005. Thursday's announcement puts an end to the goal entirely, at least for the current processor generation.
Both Intel and its arch-rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , have shifted their focus from increasing clock speed -- a measure of how fast a chip can crunch numbers -- to a vaguer notion of performance encompassing multi-tasking, security, and multimedia.
The chip industry's own technologists have long predicted that engineers would face bigger and bigger hurdles as they cranked up chip speeds. Intel Chief Technology Officer Patrick Gelsinger has famously said that without a fundamental change in chip design, PC chips would become as hot as the surface of the sun within a decade.
Shares of Intel fell 50 cents to $20.49 in afternoon trade on Nasdaq.
informed posters are more interested in facts
And this is precisely what your posts about AMD refinancing lacked completely: Facts.
Do your homework next time!
If you need to cast aspersions, perhaps you will direct them at Intel, which today admitted it is a total failure, and cannot reach 4GHz ever on the Prescott.
Yuri/conductor
No 4GHz EVER from Intel on Prescott? Is this a dream or what? Good time for AMD to refinance, now that it is clear Intel will remain at #2 in performance on CPUs for the foreseeable future.
What amazing news!
Yuri/conductor
Nope! Intel abandons plan for P4 to reach 4GHz!!!!!
Intel Scraps Plan to Boost
Clock Speed of Pentium 4
By DON CLARK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 14, 2004 1:00 p.m.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Intel Corp. is scrapping plans to hit a high-profile performance milestone for its flagship microprocessor, the latest in a series of strategy changes by the big chip maker.
The company said it no longer plans to offer its Pentium 4 chip for desktop computers at a clock speed of four gigahertz, a target that had already slipped from the end of this year until sometime in 2005. The fastest member of that chip family is now 3.6 gigahertz.
Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman, attributed the decision to a desire to focus the company's resources on other goals. Instead of boosting the clock speed on the Pentium 4 line, Intel plans to speed up the product line by boosting the size of built-in data-storage capacity on the chip -- known as cache memory -- to two megabits from one megabit.
Intel will also focus engineering resources on introducing new technologies to its product line, including putting the equivalent of multiple processors on a single chip, Mr. Mulloy said.
Now will you stop such 4.4 GHz foolishness? Intel is done. The last bin will be 3.8 GHz, if they can even manage that one!
Yuri/conductor
You don't recall a lot of things, apparently. And you seem to have difficulty reading annual reports. Perhaps you should refrain from casting aspersions on AMD until you've done your homework?
Yuri/conductor
You seem overexcited about this...
Why Intel's inventory really rose
Commentary: More parts sitting around, at a lower cost
By Herb Greenberg, CBS MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 12:54 PM ET Oct. 13, 2004
SAN DIEGO (CBS.MW) -- Intel's claim that inventory fell by $43 million last quarter from the second quarter may really be little more than smoke-and-mirrors.
While the dollar amount of inventory may have fallen, the number of parts gathering dust may have ballooned -- and not necessarily by a small amount.
The actual number is impossible to tell because as I noted Tuesday night in Herb Greenberg's RealityCheck, Intel CFO Andy Bryant went out of his way not to disclose the size of an inventory write-off and a higher-than-expected inventory reserve.
Bryant said he couldn't give a specific number because the reserve and write-off (or product "revaluation," as he put it) involve more than one item.
Not that that makes sense. "This is a company that makes microprocessors," says longtime Intel (INTC: news, chart, profile) bear Bill Fleckenstein of Fleckenstein Capital. "Are they telling us they can't add?"
Actually, it may be telling you they can add, but don't want to shine a spotlight on the number because it's so large and would likely raise other questions.
How large?
Try between $400 million to $500 million -- or $472 million, to be exact. That's the amount of increase in cost of sales, which is where Intel records inventory write-offs and reserves. After hovering at around $3.2 billion for at least four quarters, it shot up last quarter by nearly 15 percent to $3.75 billion. In a business where costs are fairly stable, it would appear most of the rise is related to the write-off and reserves.
Beyond that, it's impossible to tell how much was a write-off and how much was reserves.
By obfuscating the issue, the company can make it appear as though its inventory problems under control. But Fleckenstein believes it also diverts attention from a more serious issue: Not only are customers saturated with too much inventory -- and not only is Intel facing competitive pressure from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD: news, chart, profile) -- but it appears the company simply has too much manufacturing capacity. (This has been Fleckenstein's argument for quite some time.) Indeed, in its 10-K, Intel says, "If our demand forecast for specific products is greater than actual demand and we fail to reduce manufacturing output accordingly, we could be required to record additional inventory reserves, which would have a negative impact on our gross margins."
That appears to be just what's happening now. But the disclosure also suggests Intel could be forced to start making fewer chips, which translates into lower revenue and profits -- or perhaps no profits, depending on the size of any production cutback. A reduction by 25 percent, says Fleckenstein, would "wipe out" profits. That's before taking into account the impact of selling chips that based on the "revaluation" are being discounted.
As for the higher-than-expected reserve, Fleckenstein is suspicious. Reserves would imply the company believes that going forward it will continue to be stuck with too much inventory that either can't be sold without a steep discount or are simply obsolete. (And to think this is the time of year sales should be perking up.)
But taking an unusually high reserve could be a way for Intel to slowly leak the discounted inventory into the marketplace in coming quarters without taking a one-time, big-bath hit.
Either way, the lack of Intel's willingness to provide details about the write-off and reserve, with management dancing around the issue, suggests what you see is definitely not what you get. Houdini would be proud.
Herb Greenberg is senior columnist for CBS MarketWatch.com, based in San Diego. He does not own stocks (except for shares of his employer, MarketWatch.com), and he does not sell stocks short or invest in hedge funds.
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={0E4AE5F9-F282-4B38-9618-6DCA20EB642B}&siteid=mkt...
Why Intel's inventory really rose
Commentary: More parts sitting around, at a lower cost
By Herb Greenberg, CBS MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 12:54 PM ET Oct. 13, 2004
SAN DIEGO (CBS.MW) -- Intel's claim that inventory fell by $43 million last quarter from the second quarter may really be little more than smoke-and-mirrors.
While the dollar amount of inventory may have fallen, the number of parts gathering dust may have ballooned -- and not necessarily by a small amount.
The actual number is impossible to tell because as I noted Tuesday night in Herb Greenberg's RealityCheck, Intel CFO Andy Bryant went out of his way not to disclose the size of an inventory write-off and a higher-than-expected inventory reserve.
Bryant said he couldn't give a specific number because the reserve and write-off (or product "revaluation," as he put it) involve more than one item.
Not that that makes sense. "This is a company that makes microprocessors," says longtime Intel (INTC: news, chart, profile) bear Bill Fleckenstein of Fleckenstein Capital. "Are they telling us they can't add?"
Actually, it may be telling you they can add, but don't want to shine a spotlight on the number because it's so large and would likely raise other questions.
How large?
Try between $400 million to $500 million -- or $472 million, to be exact. That's the amount of increase in cost of sales, which is where Intel records inventory write-offs and reserves. After hovering at around $3.2 billion for at least four quarters, it shot up last quarter by nearly 15 percent to $3.75 billion. In a business where costs are fairly stable, it would appear most of the rise is related to the write-off and reserves.
Beyond that, it's impossible to tell how much was a write-off and how much was reserves.
By obfuscating the issue, the company can make it appear as though its inventory problems under control. But Fleckenstein believes it also diverts attention from a more serious issue: Not only are customers saturated with too much inventory -- and not only is Intel facing competitive pressure from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD: news, chart, profile) -- but it appears the company simply has too much manufacturing capacity. (This has been Fleckenstein's argument for quite some time.) Indeed, in its 10-K, Intel says, "If our demand forecast for specific products is greater than actual demand and we fail to reduce manufacturing output accordingly, we could be required to record additional inventory reserves, which would have a negative impact on our gross margins."
That appears to be just what's happening now. But the disclosure also suggests Intel could be forced to start making fewer chips, which translates into lower revenue and profits -- or perhaps no profits, depending on the size of any production cutback. A reduction by 25 percent, says Fleckenstein, would "wipe out" profits. That's before taking into account the impact of selling chips that based on the "revaluation" are being discounted.
As for the higher-than-expected reserve, Fleckenstein is suspicious. Reserves would imply the company believes that going forward it will continue to be stuck with too much inventory that either can't be sold without a steep discount or are simply obsolete. (And to think this is the time of year sales should be perking up.)
But taking an unusually high reserve could be a way for Intel to slowly leak the discounted inventory into the marketplace in coming quarters without taking a one-time, big-bath hit.
Either way, the lack of Intel's willingness to provide details about the write-off and reserve, with management dancing around the issue, suggests what you see is definitely not what you get. Houdini would be proud.
Herb Greenberg is senior columnist for CBS MarketWatch.com, based in San Diego. He does not own stocks (except for shares of his employer, MarketWatch.com), and he does not sell stocks short or invest in hedge funds.
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={0E4AE5F9-F282-4B38-9618-6DCA20EB642B}&siteid=mkt...
You do? Why? Are you TOUing the post to which that post was a reply? Why not?
Strictly speaking, your post was also a TOU. I have TOU'd it.
Yuri/conductor
Not another identity doubter... LOL! Here is a website you may find interesting:
http://larouchein2004.net/
Yuri/conductor
Well, a year after reaching production status, and with Intel reaching crossover on 90nm/130nm with Prescott, I don't think there's much more "maturing" left.
Yuri/conductor
It's "Merom" with an "M" at the end. (eom)
They took the inventory write-down in CHIPSETS, not processors. It is amusing to see this 2.4GHz Prescott garbage.
Yuri/conductor
The latest rumors about Merom have it in the 2007 timeframe. Regarding my 3/24 roadmap: You seem to have missed the point. Your "roadmap" was EVEN OLDER, so its H2 05 Merom reference was bogus.
See here (again): http://endian.net/details.asp?tag=Merom
Yuri/conductor
Intel has been attempting to produce "production" Prescotts (say that five times fast) for at least a year now on 90nm. Based on the delay of 4GHz to 2005, and the "risk start" they are doing on 2MB Prescott parts, I'd say that Intel has concluded Prescott is basically done scaling up in frequency.
Yuri/conductor
By late next year when their process is fully mature, I expect Intel to be at 4.4GHz with Prescott
I do not. The process is mature. The Prescott design, and its power dissipation, is the problem. 4GHz may well be the last bin.
Yuri/conductor
As I noted, it is also stale, but shows Merom in early 06. Duke's link was even more stale, showing Merom in 05.
Here is more information, talking about 2007 for Merom:
http://endian.net/details.asp?tag=Merom
Yuri
I don't understand the constant ranting about their guidance. I guess I think it is good AMD refuses to play the prediction game in detail, and I would like to see them give even less guidance other than "we will do our best". The whole mid-quarter update thing, etc. It's getting out of hand. Should they report earnings every week, and predict the following week?
Yuri
Please note that even that roadmap is stale (from March 24), as we now know that Yonah is not before 65nm in 2006, so Merom is likely to be Q4 (perhaps Q3) 2006.
Yuri/conductor
Intel lost BOTH unit and revenue share in CPUs.
The revenue part is basic arithmetic.
Here's the comment on unit share:
Intel's microprocessor unit growth last quarter was 3% vs. 11% for rival Advanced Micro Devices.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/general01.asp?v=10/12
Yuri/conductor
'fraid not, Duke. It's 2006. Your roadmap is stale. See here:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0324/kaigai01l.gif
Yuri/conductor