Replies to post #27631 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[KeithDust2000]

chipguy, The headline should have read "AMD's 64 bit Xeon Killer
Sales Dismal"

But it doesn´t. I understand why, and explained it to you. If that doesn´t make sense to you, but to most of the rest of the world, then it shows that your understanding of the business side of the server market is simply not as good as you think it is. The fact that you completely misjudged Opteron´s potential and momentum further supports that viewpoint.

[wbmw]

Chipguy, I agree with you, most especially your points #1 and #2. The people on this forum always seem to acknowledge that Opteron does not compete in the same market as Itanium, yet they are the first to compare the two in terms of server unit sales. You cannot blame Keith for being brainwashed by the media; the rhetoric can be somewhat convincing. I also notice that a lot of people here would like it if AMD could be hailed as more successful with a given product than their much larger competitor, but I find that inclination much more indicative of company cheerleading, rather than anything helpful for investors.

I'd reiterate the point by saying that Opteron and Itanium 2 are two different products that currently serve two different markets, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the two couldn't compete in the future, especially if Sun jettisons their UltraSparc line in favor of Opteron (seems more likely as time goes on, especially with "Scooter's" reluctance to associate with Intel).

I see the vast majority of Opteron servers being sold to customers who already found success with Athlon MP. Opteron is the obvious upgrade for those kinds of businesses. AMD has the opportunity to win new market share with Sun's and HP's Opteron products, but these were not contributors to 2003 sales, so I do not support the conclusion that Opteron encroached on any of Intel's share in 2003. It will be interesting to view the numbers after this year.