AMD HAS COST TECHNOLOGY ADVANTAGES OVER INTEL

[9-inch]

http://www.forbes.com/markets/emergingmarkets/2006/03/14/intel-amd-0314markets07.html

The analyst estimates servers will comprise 30% to 40% of Intel revenues and 50% of profits, with AMD respectively at 40% to 50% and 50%.

 

[penguin_d]

http://www.forbes.com/markets/emergingmarkets/2006/03/14/intel-amd-0314markets07.html

The analyst estimates servers will comprise 30% to 40% of Intel revenues and 50% of profits, with AMD respectively at 40% to 50% and 50%.

I hate to do this as I do like my AMDs (I don't own an Intel system)

Your interpretation is backwards.

If Something counts to 30%-40% of my revenue, but 50% of my profits
And your competitors count for 40%-50% of revenue, and 50% of profits.

The competitor has a more costly production process.

The statement you quoted clearly shows the Intel processors the cheaper of the 2 peices of silicon to produce.

Boo to that but hey you can't argue the numbers.

 

[crizazykid2]

yep your correct. blind fanboyism does nothing when the fanboy can't even see the obvious.

 

[LithiumSunset]

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Should have paid more attention to detail man. Penguin is correct. You have to keep in mind that producing 65nm is cheaper for Intel so, of course it only costs less to manufacture their chips. Again, one of the advantages for Intel and switching to 65nm technology.

Um, made correction for PenGuin. Sorry dude! LOL

 

[penguin_d]

Penquin

excuse me sir...

Penguin


(Please realize this post is in jest, irony on attention to detail [/b])

 

[zentraed]

http://www.forbes.com/markets/emergingmarkets/2006/03/14/intel-amd-0314markets07.html

The analyst estimates servers will comprise 30% to 40% of Intel revenues and 50% of profits, with AMD respectively at 40% to 50% and 50%.

I hate to do this as I do like my AMDs (I don't own an Intel system)

Your interpretation is backwards.

If Something counts to 30%-40% of my revenue, but 50% of my profits
And your competitors count for 40%-50% of revenue, and 50% of profits.

The competitor has a more costly production process.

The statement you quoted clearly shows the Intel processors the cheaper of the 2 peices of silicon to produce.

Boo to that but hey you can't argue the numbers.

Well, a true fanboy would look at those numbers and say that the rest of AMDs product line is more profitable than Intel's non-server.

But your argument is actually flawed. For instance, if the rest of AMDs product line had a 1% profit margin, but equal revenue to their server chips, then server chips would account for something like 90% of profits. Has their manufacturing tech changed? Nope. These are not comparative measures

 

[ak47is1337]

http://www.forbes.com/markets/emergingmarkets/2006/03/14/intel-amd-0314markets07.html

The analyst estimates servers will comprise 30% to 40% of Intel revenues and 50% of profits, with AMD respectively at 40% to 50% and 50%.

Well, this article is pretty much retarded. Intel has key price advantages in certain markets, such as the cheapest dual cores, the PD805 & PD820. Bang for buck however, AMD absolutely dominates.
-------
Conroe will change all of this; Intel is supposed to drop prices 50% on some Pentium D's, I expect AMD to do the same on FX, AMD64's and X2's...can anybody say PRICE WARS?
Not only that, but some value Conroe's should be coming out...hopefully same with AM2.

 

[Action_Man]

Get a new keyboard!

 

[LithiumSunset]

Action man is here to save the day!

We've come for your caps lock key chuck! LOL

 

[cz-75]

http://www.forbes.com/markets/emergingmarkets/2006/03/14/intel-amd-0314markets07.html

The analyst estimates servers will comprise 30% to 40% of Intel revenues and 50% of profits, with AMD respectively at 40% to 50% and 50%.

I hate to do this as I do like my AMDs (I don't own an Intel system)

Your interpretation is backwards.

If Something counts to 30%-40% of my revenue, but 50% of my profits
And your competitors count for 40%-50% of revenue, and 50% of profits.

The competitor has a more costly production process.

The statement you quoted clearly shows the Intel processors the cheaper of the 2 peices of silicon to produce.

Boo to that but hey you can't argue the numbers.

Wouldn't your analysis mean that the rest of Intel's product line is less profitable than servers, taking "revenues" as being sales? For instance, if Intel sells ~33% servers and makes half of all profits on this, that means the other ~67% is responsible for the other 50%, thus meaning these other sectors are less efficient (i.e., less profitable). There may be many reasons for this lack of profitability, including inefficiency of production processes, marketing costs per unit, etc. AMD seems to have better balance, with ~50% of total sales producing half of their total profit.

 

[penguin_d]

Ahh yes, this is true...

However, I wasn't going to do the job of an analyst, I was just pointing out that is immeadiate jump to conclusions was faulty.

If you really wish to delve into it, the reason they pull this off is that the profit margins on intel server chips is higher than the PC chips. it costs roughly the same to produce either chip.

But since AMD has had the dark cloud of "stability issues" hanging over it, Intel has been able to maintain a higher margin on it's server chips due to "better reliability".

Anyone who has a head on their shoulders knows that AMD's stability issues are about as prevalent as condors nowadays.

But it's amazing what one big screw up (K6 and related processors) can do to the image of a comapny.

 

[ak47is1337]

Ahh yes, this is true...

However, I wasn't going to do the job of an analyst, I was just pointing out that is immeadiate jump to conclusions was faulty.

If you really wish to delve into it, the reason they pull this off is that the profit margins on intel server chips is higher than the PC chips. it costs roughly the same to produce either chip.

But since AMD has had the dark cloud of "stability issues" hanging over it, Intel has been able to maintain a higher margin on it's server chips due to "better reliability".

Anyone who has a head on their shoulders knows that AMD's stability issues are about as prevalent as condors nowadays.

But it's amazing what one big screw up (K6 and related processors) can do to the image of a comapny.

I absolutely disagree. One big screw up can be made up very quickly with a competitive line of powerful chips next time around. Look at Nvidia. People though they were cooked after the release of the 5 series! Then take a look at the 6 series...absolutely dominated, and they totally revived themselves.
The point is, even if you screw up, you can still regain the lost ground with a powerful release. Only complete morons would think of the K6 when they think of AMD, and if you want to talk about screw-ups, people will look at the P4 Prescott when they think "Intel", and thus half the people on this forum blindly believe any Intel runs extremely hot.

 

[Action_Man]

Then take a look at the 6 series...absolutely dominated

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

 

[ak47is1337]

Okay, overstated. But still, 6 series was extremely successful. Think of all the 6800gt's and 6600gt's that sold...crazy.

 

[Action_Man]

Indeed it was extremely successful.

 

[ak47is1337]

he meant pentiums duh

65nm Pentium 4's are actually cooler than A64', I hate to break it to you.

 

[9-inch]

65nm Pentium 4's are actually cooler than A64', I hate to break it to you

Where in the world a P4 on 65nm is cooler than AMD's Athlon 64 on 90nm??

Show me a single bench that will back up your FUD, since all of them tend to contradict you.

 

[ak47is1337]

65nm Pentium 4's are actually cooler than A64', I hate to break it to you

Where in the world a P4 on 65nm is cooler than AMD's Athlon 64 on 90nm??

Show me a single bench that will back up your FUD, since all of them tend to contradict you.
I hate to say this, but it's basically impossible to find a review of the 65nm single core chips on google. Anandtech did one, but they didn't mention temperatures =(
All I can say is, people using the stock Intel cooler are reporting very low temperatures on stock speed/voltage.

 

[9-inch]

I hate to say this, but it's basically impossible to find a review of the 65nm single core chips on google. Anandtech did one, but they didn't mention temperatures =(
All I can say is, people using the stock Intel cooler are reporting very low temperatures on stock speed/voltage.

The same thing goes for AMD since the Venice core was introduced.

 

[ak47is1337]

I hate to say this, but it's basically impossible to find a review of the 65nm single core chips on google. Anandtech did one, but they didn't mention temperatures =(
All I can say is, people using the stock Intel cooler are reporting very low temperatures on stock speed/voltage.

The same thing goes for AMD since the Venice core was introduced.
Point is, if Intel wasn't retarded and released 65nm Netburst chips 3 years ago, we would've never ran into the heat fiasco.

 

[9-inch]

Since you couldn't post any benchmarks, I'll do it for'ya:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=4&cookie%5Ftest=1

Nevertheless, these numbers are greatly improved over the Pentium-D 800 series, which typically utilized over 300W when the processors were maxed out, in comparison to the ~235-245W numbers we're seeing with the 900 series. Impressive for Intel, but AMD is still the leader here. AMD's Athlon64 X2 chips still run cooler and consume less power compared to the Intel Pentium-D 900 series.

Point is, if Intel wasn't retarded and released 65nm Netburst chips 3 years ago, we would've never ran into the heat fiasco.

Yes. You have a point there.
AMD suffered the same problem with the Througbred processor. If they knowed about SOI before, the Athlon XP core would've scaled a lot beter than it did.

 

[ak47is1337]

Since you couldn't post any benchmarks, I'll do it for'ya:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=4&cookie%5Ftest=1
Nevertheless, these numbers are greatly improved over the Pentium-D 800 series, which typically utilized over 300W when the processors were maxed out, in comparison to the ~235-245W numbers we're seeing with the 900 series. Impressive for Intel, but AMD is still the leader here. AMD's Athlon64 X2 chips still run cooler and consume less power compared to the Intel Pentium-D 900 series.

Point is, if Intel wasn't retarded and released 65nm Netburst chips 3 years ago, we would've never ran into the heat fiasco.

Yes. You have a point there.
AMD suffered the same problem with the Througbred processor. If they knowed about SOI before the Athlon XP core would've scaled a lot beter than it did.
I'm not a fan of SOI, leaks more than Strained Silicon and it has cold boot problems...note no Intel chips have that cuz Intel uses Strained Silicon on all chips, while AMD only does on FX chips. K8 is what saved AMD.

 

[9-inch]

I'm not a fan of SOI, leaks more than Strained Silicon and it has cold boot problems...

Well, it's far superior to Intel's strained silicon since it gives more performance while lowering power consumption. I haven't seing anything about cold boot problems with it.

 

[ltcommander_data]

I'm surprised you haven't heard about the "cold bug". I'm sure someone with more AMD overclocking experience can tell you more, but it's supposedly a problem with SOI and the memory controller which doesn't run stable under 0C which prevents extreme overclocking. I'm not sure if it's still around, because it isn't publicised as much, but it might explain why some chips overclock better than others.

Anyways, on another note, I'd love to hear your take on AM2 only offering about a 3-5% performance increase over S939 using DDR2 800. AMD said those are final revisions so that's pretty much what your getting. Even if the final figures double that and show a 10% increase the FX-62 would still be 10% slower than the 2.67GHz Conroe. Admittedly those Intel provided systems may not be the most accurate, but the difference seems very large, especially with whatever Extreme Edition Intel is planning sitting in the background.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30290

 

[LithiumSunset]

I know you've probably answered this before but I wanted to ask you. What is your take on AMDs 90nm cache size factor and how far can AMD go in your opinion, with their current technology?

I've read many times about this and it seems to be an ongoing issue. I apologize in advance if this appears to be a repetitive question however, you seem very knowledgable.

Thank you in advance and keep up the great posts. I thoroughly enjoy reading them.