Replies to post #24861 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[dougSF30]

Not share, but ASPs. In the old days, if AMD was, say, 10% behind Intel in performance, what did Intel do?

Lower prices on the low-to-mid end of the desktop & mobile space, put high prices on the top performing parts, and high prices on server parts. AMD goes into the red.

With AMD in the server space, and with performance parity or a performance lead, Intel cannot employ the same strategy.

I guess my thesis is the following:

Relative CPU performance matters a great deal to AMD's bottom line. The difference between a 10% lead and a 10% deficit is everything. Any thoughts on when Intel 64b parts will first launch?

Doug

p.s. Of course, this matters even more once Intel is shipping AMD64 parts. Until then, AMD has the additional advantage of 64b vs. 32b in everything but the Itanium market.

[Techman]

RE:"If you look at the fact that AMD gained market share you miss the fact that Intel was severly capacity constrained during the run up in AMD market share. The Inq even reported they took some Pentium IIs out of storage and had resellers offer them. Gaining market share when your competitor is topped out and the market is growing is no big deal"

I believe this to be somewhat incorrect. AMD only took market share when they had the performance and Megahertz lead over Intel. If there was a shortage it included a shortage of high megahertz P-IIIs.
Intel was so desparate they were introducing P-III speed grades before their time. Exhibit the 1.13 Ghz P-III.

This time it's a bit different. AMD will take share in the high profit server arena so any increase in share will bring a great deal of profit vs. the general desktop chip.

AMD should have a slight PR rating lead over Intel for the rest of the year. This alone won't be enough to garner a great deal more share for AMD. The real ace in the hole is AMD64 but now I see Intel crashing the party and it becomes aquestion of when we see Yamhill type chips and a Windows XP 64 bit version.