Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I told you this would be an issue... bite me!!!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 19, 2006 9:39:03 PM

Quote:
Santa Clara (CA) - Intel Q1 earnings result met the expectations of investor, but lower processor, chipset and flash memory sales brought the first substantial revenue and profit decline in several quarters. Reported revenues were $8.9 billion, 32% below the first quarter of 2005; profit dipped 38% in the same time frame.

Chief executive officer said that Intel was confronted with "moderating PC growth" over the past few quarters. He blamed slower chip-level inventory reductions for Intel's lower sales. Media and industry sources speculated that Intel may also have lost more market segment shares to AMD in several markets, including the higher-margin server segment.





Overall, Intel reported lower unit sales for its processors. Average selling prices were also lower as a result of the increased competition with AMD which forced Intel to lower the prices for its chips during the quarter. Additionally, Intel reported lower chipset, motherboard and flash sales as well as a declining amount of application processor shipments.

On a positive note, the transition to a 65 nm process appears to be advancing smoothly, as the company was able to ship millions of 65nm dual-core processors. Intel saw "strong acceptance" of the Centrino Duo mobile platform as well as the Viiv platform, Otellini said. The executive confirmed that the firm's new Core microarchitecture will be launching in the third quarter of this year.

According to information released earlier this year, Intel will be launching first the Woodcrest server chip (Xeon 5100 series) to compete with AMD's Opteron. The desktop chip Conroe (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) will be following shortly thereafter. The mobile Merom processor (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series), which represents the foundation of the Core architecture may launch in Q4 of this year.

Related article:






I told everyone this Conroe thing would bled Intel because of ASP and the next day Tom posts a story about Intel losing OODLES of money.


Take that fanboys!!!!

More about : told issue bite

April 19, 2006 9:41:09 PM

Well aren't you somethin'?[/ :roll: ]
April 19, 2006 9:54:25 PM

Intel commited corporate suicide with the release of conroe benchmarks early.
Related resources
April 19, 2006 9:55:22 PM

Quote:
Santa Clara (CA) - Intel Q1 earnings result met the expectations of investor, but lower processor, chipset and flash memory sales brought the first substantial revenue and profit decline in several quarters. Reported revenues were $8.9 billion, 32% below the first quarter of 2005; profit dipped 38% in the same time frame.

Chief executive officer said that Intel was confronted with "moderating PC growth" over the past few quarters. He blamed slower chip-level inventory reductions for Intel's lower sales. Media and industry sources speculated that Intel may also have lost more market segment shares to AMD in several markets, including the higher-margin server segment.





Overall, Intel reported lower unit sales for its processors. Average selling prices were also lower as a result of the increased competition with AMD which forced Intel to lower the prices for its chips during the quarter. Additionally, Intel reported lower chipset, motherboard and flash sales as well as a declining amount of application processor shipments.

On a positive note, the transition to a 65 nm process appears to be advancing smoothly, as the company was able to ship millions of 65nm dual-core processors. Intel saw "strong acceptance" of the Centrino Duo mobile platform as well as the Viiv platform, Otellini said. The executive confirmed that the firm's new Core microarchitecture will be launching in the third quarter of this year.

According to information released earlier this year, Intel will be launching first the Woodcrest server chip (Xeon 5100 series) to compete with AMD's Opteron. The desktop chip Conroe (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) will be following shortly thereafter. The mobile Merom processor (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series), which represents the foundation of the Core architecture may launch in Q4 of this year.

Related article:






I told everyone this Conroe thing would bled Intel because of ASP and the next day Tom posts a story about Intel losing OODLES of money.


Take that fanboys!!!!


LOL! you're a funny man! Actually the only thing intel lost was some market share. They acually did post a profit of 1.35 billion dollars for the quarter on 8.94 billion dollars of revenue. Not as good as the same quarter last year, but still quite profitable.

Intel Q1 results article

And if you think intel is not going to do anything about AMD's recent market share advances, you are quite foolish indeed.
April 19, 2006 10:07:03 PM

Now let me put this into perspective for you. I just looked at AMD's first quarter earnings and for your information, Intel's profit of 1.35 billion was 20 million dollars more than AMD's total revenue of 1.33 billion for the first quarter.

AMD Q1 earnings report

While I will give AMD credit where credit is due, I cant help but think their best days are soon to be behind them. At least for a couple years.
April 19, 2006 10:10:26 PM

Quote:
Intel commited corporate suicide with the release of conroe benchmarks early.


Oh? How so? Would you care to elaborate?
April 19, 2006 10:11:11 PM

You have to take this to scale. Intel is so much larger than AMD that they can easily temporarly slash prices in order to dump product. (especially when preparing to roll out a new product line) For example: according to 2006 1st quarter Intel posts 8.9 billion in revenue(AMD must be stomping them huh?) with operating income of 1.7 billion leaving net income of 1.3 billion. This is compared to AMD with 1.332 billion in revenue (14% of Intel's) with operating income of 259 million leaving net income of 185 million (again 14% of Intel) Intels net income is roughly equal to AMD's entire revenue! Intel's net income is 14.6% of their revenue while AMD's net income is is 13.8% of their revenue. So it seems that Intel is similar to AMD in the financial sense only on a vastly larger scale.

I actually post this on BaronMatrix's other thread but it seems appropriate here.

Edit: I didn't scroll down far enough and it looks like gr8Mikey beat me to it.
April 19, 2006 10:19:15 PM

Quote:
You have to take this to scale. Intel is so much larger than AMD that they can easily temporarly slash prices in order to dump product. (especially when preparing to roll out a new product line) For example: according to 2006 1st quarter Intel posts 8.9 billion in revenue(AMD must be stomping them huh?) with operating income of 1.7 billion leaving net income of 1.3 billion. This is compared to AMD with 1.332 billion in revenue (14% of Intel's) with operating income of 259 million leaving net income of 185 million (again 14% of Intel) Intels net income is roughly equal to AMD's entire revenue! Intel's net income is 14.6% of their revenue while AMD's net income is is 13.8% of their revenue. So it seems that Intel is similar to AMD in the financial sense only on a vastly larger scale.

I actually post this on BaronMatrix's other thread but it seems appropriate here.

Edit: I didn't scroll down far enough and it looks like gr8Mikey beat me to it.



I am not arguing size, I'm saying that this is a bad harbinger in my book. Why is AMD selling MORE? We'll see what happens but in my mind the Conroe is shooting themselves in the foot.

Gotta go now. See ya when I get home.
April 19, 2006 10:19:44 PM

Quote:
Intel commited corporate suicide with the release of conroe benchmarks early.


Oh? How so? Would you care to elaborate?

ROFL! Your asking piddy to elaborate!

This oughta be interesting.

*sits back to enjoy the show*
April 19, 2006 10:23:11 PM

Quote:
Why is AMD selling MORE?


Huh?? How can Intel have 8.9 billion in revenue compared to AMD's 1.33 billion and be selling less processors?
April 19, 2006 10:25:29 PM

Quote:
You have to take this to scale. Intel is so much larger than AMD that they can easily temporarly slash prices in order to dump product. (especially when preparing to roll out a new product line) For example: according to 2006 1st quarter Intel posts 8.9 billion in revenue(AMD must be stomping them huh?) with operating income of 1.7 billion leaving net income of 1.3 billion. This is compared to AMD with 1.332 billion in revenue (14% of Intel's) with operating income of 259 million leaving net income of 185 million (again 14% of Intel) Intels net income is roughly equal to AMD's entire revenue! Intel's net income is 14.6% of their revenue while AMD's net income is is 13.8% of their revenue. So it seems that Intel is similar to AMD in the financial sense only on a vastly larger scale.

I actually post this on BaronMatrix's other thread but it seems appropriate here.

Edit: I didn't scroll down far enough and it looks like gr8Mikey beat me to it.


Well--first of all, I am not truly a fanboy either way. I will say that Intel is losing control of the processor market. At this rate and if this trend continues, Intel is in alot of trouble. Remember that the new chips are coming out in Q4 as well, meaning that there are two more quarters before Intel has a leg to stand on (IMHO). It is a bad thing for Intel--the Q1 results, that is. This is a profit, yes, but it is quite a slump from the normal trend. Even if they make $40 trillion every day, slumping down to only $28 trillion a day will seriously affect their business. They are used to living large but now have to tone it down a notch from the giant they were before.
April 19, 2006 10:26:55 PM

Chipsets??? Intel sells several things other than cpus...
April 19, 2006 10:30:31 PM

I hope you brought popcorn! Because I'm not missing this either!
April 19, 2006 10:56:12 PM

Quote:
Intel commited corporate suicide with the release of conroe benchmarks early.


Oh? How so? Would you care to elaborate? Certainly when intel released the benchmark scores people said wow look at that intel's future offerings are gonna be better than amd's and since amd is good now i think i'll stop buying intel p4's until their next generation is released but i will still buy their mobile products. Happy these are not my words just the ones of the average consumer :D 
April 19, 2006 11:06:24 PM

Quote:


I am not arguing size, I'm saying that this is a bad harbinger in my book. Why is AMD selling MORE? We'll see what happens but in my mind the Conroe is shooting themselves in the foot.

Gotta go now. See ya when I get home.


Go ask any 10 people on the street what conroe and AM2 are. I'll guarantee you that they won't have a clue what you are talking about. And guess what? these people will probably be very representative of your average home computer user. They don't have a clue what a cpu does or know the least little thing about how it works. As far as they can tell, its magic.

What these people do understand is when Dell sends the brochure in the mail advertising a complete computer with a flat panel monitor for $499 its a great deal and they buy it.

If your theory is that nobody will buy intel due to the early benchmarks, what makes you think that they will buy AMD (at least 20% inferior) either?
April 19, 2006 11:06:42 PM

Quote:
Chipsets??? Intel sells several things other than cpus...


True. But most of their chipset accompany their cpu's. How many companies in how many industries can hope to have the kind of marketshare and profits that Intel is currently pulling? The problem is that Intel has operated for years in practically a monopolistic market. Now that AMD is giving them some real competition it only makes sense that they will lose some marketshare/profits. Intel is trying to keep marketshare while AMD is still growing. Any time you've got a HUGE company that dominates a market you will always have smaller and more agile companies eating away at profits.
April 19, 2006 11:30:00 PM

Quote:
Intel commited corporate suicide with the release of conroe benchmarks early.


Oh? How so? Would you care to elaborate? Certainly when intel released the benchmark scores people said wow look at that intel's future offerings are gonna be better than amd's and since amd is good now i think i'll stop buying intel p4's until their next generation is released but i will still buy their mobile products. Happy these are not my words just the ones of the average consumer :D 

How many P4's do you think the average consumer buys? I would say the average consumer buys one computer every 4 - 5 years. And I think you are giving the average consumer a little too much credit.

Average consumer shops almost exclusively by price and possible computer brand name. Most could care less whats actually inside the case - so long as it does what they need it to do.
April 19, 2006 11:32:19 PM

Quote:
Intel commited corporate suicide with the release of conroe benchmarks early.


Oh? How so? Would you care to elaborate? Certainly when intel released the benchmark scores people said wow look at that intel's future offerings are gonna be better than amd's and since amd is good now i think i'll stop buying intel p4's until their next generation is released but i will still buy their mobile products. Happy these are not my words just the ones of the average consumer :D 

How many P4's do you think the average consumer buys? I would say the average consumer buys one computer every 4 - 5 years. And I think you are giving the average consumer a little too much credit.

Average consumer shops almost exclusively by price and possible computer brand name. Most could care less whats actually inside the case - so long as it does what they need it to do.

I realise you just mis-spoke but I found it quite funny...Pentium 4's have only been available for 4 or 5 years. That kinda means consumers only own one P4 system... :tongue:
April 19, 2006 11:43:10 PM

How come nobody Made a movie on this FX-62 Vs Conroe Fiasco.
I mean come on The guy made a movie on "Super size me" and "trekkies" and so much other mockumentrys and documentrys

I mean come on someone that reads this please get your cameras or HDDVD recorders out and go around to some of the biggest fan boys on Conroe and the biggest fan boys for FX-62 and go interview them and maybe get a few INTEL and AMD people. It would be a great movie lols i would watch because we're spending half our life on these fourms hashing it out each other and this concerns a multi-billion dollar profit for both companys and we're the Geeks and nerds that are hashing each other for which is going to break INTEL or make it. or Break AMD or Keep on making it.

I seriously think there should be a movie on this, i can't do much about this because i'm up here in Canada but You Americans can think about it. there are almost 1Billion computerusers and about 10% are enthuasists and 10% of the 10% are people like us So there is a great Idea pitch there will still be about 2-3 million potential viewers of this movie.

Sorry for going off topic but i think this issue deserves to be filmed
i sure would go and watch it or download it atleast
any one think its s good enough post i'll create a thread on this topic lols even if its not exactly on topic but this relates to CPUs in a BIG Way

LOLS
April 19, 2006 11:44:36 PM

Quote:
How many P4's do you think the average consumer buys? I would say the average consumer buys one computer every 4 - 5 years. And I think you are giving the average consumer a little too much credit.

Average consumer shops almost exclusively by price and possible computer brand name. Most could care less whats actually inside the case - so long as it does what they need it to do.


Exactly. Up until a few years ago AMD had much less market presence. You could buy an E-machine with an AMD, but the major OEM's like HP weren't pushing them near as much. That's why AMD is gaining market share. For the same reason AMD fanboys claim that Intel is around because of Dell. Probably 90% of computer buyers hardly know what a cpu is, let alone have an opinion about their favorite cpu manufacturer. I would bet that AMD's increase in market share has very little to do with the performance of their cpu's and much more to do with their marketing and sales departments. Getting AMD's into the hands of the average consumer and the large volume buyers through OEM's is why your seeing market gains for AMD. Like I've said before I think the forums and local computer shops are making aot of people a little sheltered to the reality.
April 19, 2006 11:51:31 PM

I actually have real world experience with the average consumer. I worked at a mom and pop computer store for 3 years. I did sales, builds, repairs, and upgrades. What I can tell you is that price was far and away the most important selling factor. For this reason, we probably sold 15 AMD for every 1 intel (sometimes we would get intel pulls that we could run a great deal on).

And as far as people specifically requesting which processor to use I would say maybe about 1 in 20. So which processor was in it only mattered to about 5% of our customers.

Top four requests for new computers in my day were:

1.) How much does it cost (or how much can I get for $600)
2.) How big is the monitor
3.) Does it come with a printer
4.) Does it come with a CD burner
April 19, 2006 11:57:22 PM

I agree completely scarchunk. AMD has always been #1 for mom and pop computer stores and enthusiasts. It is definitely the recent marketing wins with some of the tier 1 OEM's that has AMD's marketshare on the rise.
April 20, 2006 12:01:06 AM

Quote:
I actually have real world experience with the average consumer. I worked at a mom and pop computer store for 3 years. I did sales, builds, repairs, and upgrades. What I can tell you is that price was far and away the most important selling factor. For this reason, we probably sold 15 AMD for every 1 intel (sometimes we would get intel pulls that we could run a great deal on).

And as far as people specifically requesting which processor to use I would say maybe about 1 in 20. So which processor was in it only mattered to about 5% of our customers.

Top four requests for new computers in my day were:

1.) How much does it cost (or how much can I get for $600)
2.) How big is the monitor
3.) Does it come with a printer
4.) Does it come with a CD burner


Word.
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2006 12:01:23 AM

Quote:
Santa Clara (CA) - Intel Q1 earnings result met the expectations of investor, but lower processor, chipset and flash memory sales brought the first substantial revenue and profit decline in several quarters. Reported revenues were $8.9 billion, 32% below the first quarter of 2005; profit dipped 38% in the same time frame.

Chief executive officer said that Intel was confronted with "moderating PC growth" over the past few quarters. He blamed slower chip-level inventory reductions for Intel's lower sales. Media and industry sources speculated that Intel may also have lost more market segment shares to AMD in several markets, including the higher-margin server segment.

Overall, Intel reported lower unit sales for its processors. Average selling prices were also lower as a result of the increased competition with AMD which forced Intel to lower the prices for its chips during the quarter. Additionally, Intel reported lower chipset, motherboard and flash sales as well as a declining amount of application processor shipments.

On a positive note, the transition to a 65 nm process appears to be advancing smoothly, as the company was able to ship millions of 65nm dual-core processors. Intel saw "strong acceptance" of the Centrino Duo mobile platform as well as the Viiv platform, Otellini said. The executive confirmed that the firm's new Core microarchitecture will be launching in the third quarter of this year.

According to information released earlier this year, Intel will be launching first the Woodcrest server chip (Xeon 5100 series) to compete with AMD's Opteron. The desktop chip Conroe (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) will be following shortly thereafter. The mobile Merom processor (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series), which represents the foundation of the Core architecture may launch in Q4 of this year.

Related article:


I told everyone this Conroe thing would bled Intel because of ASP and the next day Tom posts a story about Intel losing OODLES of money.

Take that fanboys!!!!

The quarterly results quoted in the article have nothing to do with releasing Conroe becnmarks. They have more to do with the "inventory levels" and the "higher-margin server segment", don't read anything else into it other than what is presented in the article, don't be so presumptious.. Those numbers are the end of comparing 1Q '06 to 1Q '05 results and realizing the strategy and direction changes that Intel has made over the past year. Opteron's have bumped Xeon installs in recent rounds of corporate server upgrades. Intel has been anticipating the release of Conroe since summer '05, it stands to reason that "slower chip-level inventory reductions" are going to happen because the company is unloading older stock; production of older cores has slowed since Intel facilities shifted production focus. Let's also remember Intel's big marketing campaign last year; IntelMacs were annonced, they intro'd Conroe, Core Duo, ViiV, blah, blah, blah...so again, this has nothing to do with Conroe, benchmarks, or any other fanboy butt-effing bull$hit...

Almost seems like your trying to start another useless Intel/AMD or Conroe/AM2 flame thread...and you talk about fandoys...don't be such a child...
April 20, 2006 12:02:05 AM

Quote:
You have to take this to scale. Intel is so much larger than AMD that they can easily temporarly slash prices in order to dump product. (especially when preparing to roll out a new product line) For example: according to 2006 1st quarter Intel posts 8.9 billion in revenue(AMD must be stomping them huh?) with operating income of 1.7 billion leaving net income of 1.3 billion. This is compared to AMD with 1.332 billion in revenue (14% of Intel's) with operating income of 259 million leaving net income of 185 million (again 14% of Intel) Intels net income is roughly equal to AMD's entire revenue! Intel's net income is 14.6% of their revenue while AMD's net income is is 13.8% of their revenue. So it seems that Intel is similar to AMD in the financial sense only on a vastly larger scale.

I actually post this on BaronMatrix's other thread but it seems appropriate here.

Edit: I didn't scroll down far enough and it looks like gr8Mikey beat me to it.


Well--first of all, I am not truly a fanboy either way. I will say that Intel is losing control of the processor market. At this rate and if this trend continues, Intel is in alot of trouble. Remember that the new chips are coming out in Q4 as well, meaning that there are two more quarters before Intel has a leg to stand on (IMHO). It is a bad thing for Intel--the Q1 results, that is. This is a profit, yes, but it is quite a slump from the normal trend. Even if they make $40 trillion every day, slumping down to only $28 trillion a day will seriously affect their business. They are used to living large but now have to tone it down a notch from the giant they were before.


Since we're all making the disclaimers, Im not a fanboy either-of any specific manufacturer-tho I am a fan of performance.

I wouldnt say Intel is losing control, that may be a going a bit too far at this point in time. Look at the market shares. Intel has lost ground to AMD in the server market, but the PC market shares havent moved significantly. And as for the shares Intel lost to AMD, Intel still holds the lions share of the server market relative to AMD.

AMD has made some great strides in the server arena, But they are a long way from stealing the controling interest away from Intel, even with the new CPUs coming later this year. Going from 5.4% share to 12.7 share is a big jump in the server market, but the overall processor share jump (PC, server, mobile) was only from 15.8 to 18.2, due to the server market shift.

http://www.crn-india.com/breakingnews/stories/63927.htm...


As to the decreased earnings in the PC arena, thats due primarily to flagging growth in PC sales, not lost market share to AMD. (At least according to Intel)

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/tm.site/news/TOP%20STORY/...

Additionally, AMDs place is hardly set in stone as its stock share prices have dropped 20% recently:
(This one is longer, but a good read)

http://www.toptechnews.com/news/AMD-Tumbles-on-Market-S...


I think one of the important things to see, in these links is that Intel is expected to start a pricing war, which is driving AMD stock down based on expectations of intel regaining some of its lost market share. So, I would say AMD is taking control of the market from Intel may be a bit too optimistic at this point.

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-2006...


Peace
April 20, 2006 12:03:00 AM

Quote:
Santa Clara (CA) - Intel Q1 earnings result met the expectations of investor, but lower processor, chipset and flash memory sales brought the first substantial revenue and profit decline in several quarters. Reported revenues were $8.9 billion, 32% below the first quarter of 2005; profit dipped 38% in the same time frame.

Chief executive officer said that Intel was confronted with "moderating PC growth" over the past few quarters. He blamed slower chip-level inventory reductions for Intel's lower sales. Media and industry sources speculated that Intel may also have lost more market segment shares to AMD in several markets, including the higher-margin server segment.

Overall, Intel reported lower unit sales for its processors. Average selling prices were also lower as a result of the increased competition with AMD which forced Intel to lower the prices for its chips during the quarter. Additionally, Intel reported lower chipset, motherboard and flash sales as well as a declining amount of application processor shipments.

On a positive note, the transition to a 65 nm process appears to be advancing smoothly, as the company was able to ship millions of 65nm dual-core processors. Intel saw "strong acceptance" of the Centrino Duo mobile platform as well as the Viiv platform, Otellini said. The executive confirmed that the firm's new Core microarchitecture will be launching in the third quarter of this year.

According to information released earlier this year, Intel will be launching first the Woodcrest server chip (Xeon 5100 series) to compete with AMD's Opteron. The desktop chip Conroe (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) will be following shortly thereafter. The mobile Merom processor (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series), which represents the foundation of the Core architecture may launch in Q4 of this year.

Related article:


I told everyone this Conroe thing would bled Intel because of ASP and the next day Tom posts a story about Intel losing OODLES of money.

Take that fanboys!!!!

The quarterly results quoted in the article have nothing to do with releasing Conroe becnmarks. They have more to do with the "inventory levels" and the "higher-margin server segment", don't read anything else into it other than what is presented in the article, don't be so presumptious.. Those numbers are the end of comparing 1Q '06 to 1Q '05 results and realizing the strategy and direction changes that Intel has made over the past year. Opteron's have bumped Xeon installs in recent rounds of corporate server upgrades. Intel has been anticipating the release of Conroe since summer '05, it stands to reason that "slower chip-level inventory reductions" are going to happen because the company is unloading older stock; production of older cores has slowed since Intel facilities shifted production focus. Let's also remember Intel's big marketing campaign last year; IntelMacs were annonced, they intro'd Conroe, Core Duo, ViiV, blah, blah, blah...so again, this has nothing to do with Conroe, benchmarks, or any other fanboy butt-effing bull$hit...

Almost seems like your trying to start another useless Intel/AMD or Conroe/AM2 flame thread...and you talk about fandoys...don't be such a child...

Word.
April 20, 2006 12:25:12 AM

good links turpit.

Enjoyed reading through them.
April 20, 2006 12:28:31 AM

Quote:
the same reason AMD fanboys claim that Intel is around because of Dell.
If anything Dell is around because Intel; Intel has been here longer, and is also a larger company than Dell.
April 20, 2006 12:34:46 AM

Quote:
the same reason AMD fanboys claim that Intel is around because of Dell.
If anything Dell is around because Intel; Intel has been here longer, and is also a larger company than Dell.

Actually it has alot more to do with Dell's direct to customer sales model and exceptional inventory control as opposed to what cpu they use.
April 20, 2006 12:36:31 AM

I agree. All the time you'll see people claim that Dell exclusively selling Intel is the reason that Intel has such a huge market share. Since most people buy from an OEM, this is the same reason AMD is seeing gains in their market share. I guess that's what I was trying to say.
April 20, 2006 12:37:12 AM

Quote:
the same reason AMD fanboys claim that Intel is around because of Dell.
If anything Dell is around because Intel; Intel has been here longer, and is also a larger company than Dell.

Actually it has alot more to do with Dell's direct to customer sales model and exceptional inventory control as opposed to what cpu they use.

Word.
April 20, 2006 12:44:46 AM

Quote:
Why is AMD selling MORE?


Huh?? How can Intel have 8.9 billion in revenue compared to AMD's 1.33 billion and be selling less processors?


Not more than Intel. More than they(AMD) did last year. You guys just like being a-holes don't you?
April 20, 2006 12:48:19 AM

Quote:
Santa Clara (CA) - Intel Q1 earnings result met the expectations of investor, but lower processor, chipset and flash memory sales brought the first substantial revenue and profit decline in several quarters. Reported revenues were $8.9 billion, 32% below the first quarter of 2005; profit dipped 38% in the same time frame.

Chief executive officer said that Intel was confronted with "moderating PC growth" over the past few quarters. He blamed slower chip-level inventory reductions for Intel's lower sales. Media and industry sources speculated that Intel may also have lost more market segment shares to AMD in several markets, including the higher-margin server segment.

Overall, Intel reported lower unit sales for its processors. Average selling prices were also lower as a result of the increased competition with AMD which forced Intel to lower the prices for its chips during the quarter. Additionally, Intel reported lower chipset, motherboard and flash sales as well as a declining amount of application processor shipments.

On a positive note, the transition to a 65 nm process appears to be advancing smoothly, as the company was able to ship millions of 65nm dual-core processors. Intel saw "strong acceptance" of the Centrino Duo mobile platform as well as the Viiv platform, Otellini said. The executive confirmed that the firm's new Core microarchitecture will be launching in the third quarter of this year.

According to information released earlier this year, Intel will be launching first the Woodcrest server chip (Xeon 5100 series) to compete with AMD's Opteron. The desktop chip Conroe (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) will be following shortly thereafter. The mobile Merom processor (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series), which represents the foundation of the Core architecture may launch in Q4 of this year.

Related article:


I told everyone this Conroe thing would bled Intel because of ASP and the next day Tom posts a story about Intel losing OODLES of money.

Take that fanboys!!!!

The quarterly results quoted in the article have nothing to do with releasing Conroe becnmarks. They have more to do with the "inventory levels" and the "higher-margin server segment", don't read anything else into it other than what is presented in the article, don't be so presumptious.. Those numbers are the end of comparing 1Q '06 to 1Q '05 results and realizing the strategy and direction changes that Intel has made over the past year. Opteron's have bumped Xeon installs in recent rounds of corporate server upgrades. Intel has been anticipating the release of Conroe since summer '05, it stands to reason that "slower chip-level inventory reductions" are going to happen because the company is unloading older stock; production of older cores has slowed since Intel facilities shifted production focus. Let's also remember Intel's big marketing campaign last year; IntelMacs were annonced, they intro'd Conroe, Core Duo, ViiV, blah, blah, blah...so again, this has nothing to do with Conroe, benchmarks, or any other fanboy butt-effing bull$hit...

Almost seems like your trying to start another useless Intel/AMD or Conroe/AM2 flame thread...and you talk about fandoys...don't be such a child...

Word.



I ws making an observation based on AMD's gains and the fact that Intel has no chips worth $1000 until Conroe (perhaps). And they're going to "give" them away for $500?

Look at the prices Dell is charging. No I'm not going to look it up. I don't care. It was an interesting turn I thought.


End of Statement.
April 20, 2006 12:57:36 AM

Quote:


I am not arguing size, I'm saying that this is a bad harbinger in my book. Why is AMD selling MORE? We'll see what happens but in my mind the Conroe is shooting themselves in the foot.

Gotta go now. See ya when I get home.


Go ask any 10 people on the street what conroe and AM2 are. I'll guarantee you that they won't have a clue what you are talking about. And guess what? these people will probably be very representative of your average home computer user. They don't have a clue what a cpu does or know the least little thing about how it works. As far as they can tell, its magic.

What these people do understand is when Dell sends the brochure in the mail advertising a complete computer with a flat panel monitor for $499 its a great deal and they buy it.

If your theory is that nobody will buy intel due to the early benchmarks, what makes you think that they will buy AMD (at least 20% inferior) either?


Th einteresting part of your response ifs that it mentions how much money Intel is hemorraging from Dell charging $499 for ANY computer. How much can they really be paying Intel per chip? That is the point ASP makes or breaks a CPU company just like margins do for OEMs. My theory is that if they are selling chips that cheap they will not make as much money. As far as the server space, Sun and HP are making a killing with Opterons and Data Centers want low power which Intel won't have for months and months. More money lost.

Period!
April 20, 2006 1:04:11 AM

Quote:
the fact that Intel has no chips worth $1000 until Conroe (perhaps). And they're going to "give" them away for $500?


How many people do you think buy $1000 cpu's? This is good for Intel. It's not how much money Intel makes per chip. It's volume that rules. Intel is so much bigger with such larger market share that they can afford to sell their chips cheaper and still make a killing (8.9 billion) by selling tons of them. It's the same reason Wal-Mart can sell their stuff cheaper (ASP) than K-Mart and still make more money.
April 20, 2006 1:07:24 AM

Quote:
Santa Clara (CA) - Intel Q1 earnings result met the expectations of investor, but lower processor, chipset and flash memory sales brought the first substantial revenue and profit decline in several quarters. Reported revenues were $8.9 billion, 32% below the first quarter of 2005; profit dipped 38% in the same time frame.

Chief executive officer said that Intel was confronted with "moderating PC growth" over the past few quarters. He blamed slower chip-level inventory reductions for Intel's lower sales. Media and industry sources speculated that Intel may also have lost more market segment shares to AMD in several markets, including the higher-margin server segment.

Overall, Intel reported lower unit sales for its processors. Average selling prices were also lower as a result of the increased competition with AMD which forced Intel to lower the prices for its chips during the quarter. Additionally, Intel reported lower chipset, motherboard and flash sales as well as a declining amount of application processor shipments.

On a positive note, the transition to a 65 nm process appears to be advancing smoothly, as the company was able to ship millions of 65nm dual-core processors. Intel saw "strong acceptance" of the Centrino Duo mobile platform as well as the Viiv platform, Otellini said. The executive confirmed that the firm's new Core microarchitecture will be launching in the third quarter of this year.

According to information released earlier this year, Intel will be launching first the Woodcrest server chip (Xeon 5100 series) to compete with AMD's Opteron. The desktop chip Conroe (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) will be following shortly thereafter. The mobile Merom processor (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series), which represents the foundation of the Core architecture may launch in Q4 of this year.

Related article:


I told everyone this Conroe thing would bled Intel because of ASP and the next day Tom posts a story about Intel losing OODLES of money.

Take that fanboys!!!!

The quarterly results quoted in the article have nothing to do with releasing Conroe becnmarks. They have more to do with the "inventory levels" and the "higher-margin server segment", don't read anything else into it other than what is presented in the article, don't be so presumptious.. Those numbers are the end of comparing 1Q '06 to 1Q '05 results and realizing the strategy and direction changes that Intel has made over the past year. Opteron's have bumped Xeon installs in recent rounds of corporate server upgrades. Intel has been anticipating the release of Conroe since summer '05, it stands to reason that "slower chip-level inventory reductions" are going to happen because the company is unloading older stock; production of older cores has slowed since Intel facilities shifted production focus. Let's also remember Intel's big marketing campaign last year; IntelMacs were annonced, they intro'd Conroe, Core Duo, ViiV, blah, blah, blah...so again, this has nothing to do with Conroe, benchmarks, or any other fanboy butt-effing bull$hit...

Almost seems like your trying to start another useless Intel/AMD or Conroe/AM2 flame thread...and you talk about fandoys...don't be such a child...

Word.



I ws making an observation based on AMD's gains and the fact that Intel has no chips worth $1000 until Conroe (perhaps). And they're going to "give" them away for $500?

Look at the prices Dell is charging. No I'm not going to look it up. I don't care. It was an interesting turn I thought.


End of Statement.

Why are you getting mad at me I just said word.
April 20, 2006 1:10:57 AM

Quote:
I actually have real world experience with the average consumer. I worked at a mom and pop computer store for 3 years. I did sales, builds, repairs, and upgrades. What I can tell you is that price was far and away the most important selling factor. For this reason, we probably sold 15 AMD for every 1 intel (sometimes we would get intel pulls that we could run a great deal on).

And as far as people specifically requesting which processor to use I would say maybe about 1 in 20. So which processor was in it only mattered to about 5% of our customers.

Top four requests for new computers in my day were:

1.) How much does it cost (or how much can I get for $600)
2.) How big is the monitor
3.) Does it come with a printer
4.) Does it come with a CD burner


I actually have very similar experiences every day, working at a locally owned computer shop. People come in, they look at the little flyers we have printed out for our pre-configured machines, and they usually buy the cheapest one.

The only time CPU brand comes into play is when they go "AMD Sempron? How is that compared to a Pentium?" When I explain the comparison to them (usually in very dumbed down terms - "AMD 2800 is equal to the Intel 2.8 GHz"), they just nod and say "Okay."
April 20, 2006 1:22:34 AM

Quote:


I am not arguing size, I'm saying that this is a bad harbinger in my book. Why is AMD selling MORE? We'll see what happens but in my mind the Conroe is shooting themselves in the foot.

Gotta go now. See ya when I get home.


Go ask any 10 people on the street what conroe and AM2 are. I'll guarantee you that they won't have a clue what you are talking about. And guess what? these people will probably be very representative of your average home computer user. They don't have a clue what a cpu does or know the least little thing about how it works. As far as they can tell, its magic.

What these people do understand is when Dell sends the brochure in the mail advertising a complete computer with a flat panel monitor for $499 its a great deal and they buy it.

If your theory is that nobody will buy intel due to the early benchmarks, what makes you think that they will buy AMD (at least 20% inferior) either?


Th einteresting part of your response ifs that it mentions how much money Intel is hemorraging from Dell charging $499 for ANY computer. How much can they really be paying Intel per chip? That is the point ASP makes or breaks a CPU company just like margins do for OEMs. My theory is that if they are selling chips that cheap they will not make as much money. As far as the server space, Sun and HP are making a killing with Opterons and Data Centers want low power which Intel won't have for months and months. More money lost.

Period!

Company A sells 5,000,000 CPU's at 140.00 a piece =700,000,000
Company B sells 500,000,000 CPU's at 75.00 a piece =37,000,000,000
Comapny B sells 500,000,000 CPU's at 45.00 a piece to illustrate a point = 25,000,000,000
April 20, 2006 1:35:10 AM

Quote:
Company A sells 5,000,000 CPU's at 140.00 a piece =700,000,000
Company B sells 500,000,000 CPU's at 75.00 a piece =37,000,000,000
Comapny B sells 500,000,000 CPU's at 45.00 a piece to illustrate a point = 25,000,000,000




So you're admitting that Intel is taking a bath and will be until 2007? WHy are our large tech companies making such bad decisions? Wintel is just pretty sorry right now. Who wants to bet that at least two countries will find Intel in breach of monopoly laws and fine the hell out of them?
April 20, 2006 1:42:27 AM

Quote:
Company A sells 5,000,000 CPU's at 140.00 a piece =700,000,000
Company B sells 500,000,000 CPU's at 75.00 a piece =37,000,000,000
Comapny B sells 500,000,000 CPU's at 45.00 a piece to illustrate a point = 25,000,000,000




So you're admitting that Intel is taking a bath and will be until 2007? WHy are our large tech companies making such bad decisions? Wintel is just pretty sorry right now. Who wants to bet that at least two countries will find Intel in breach of monopoly laws and fine the hell out of them?

I'm not admitting anything because there isnt anything for me to admit to, I simply illustrated due to quantity Intel can cut and cut and cut somemore and still come out on top fiscally.

As per why they do what they do I don't run a fortune 500 company so I'm left with my opinions, and in my opinion they will be just fine.

Wintel is a catch phrase Linux users use to describe Intel and Microsoft based machines, not a alternate name for Intel.

Need to find them guilty of anti-trust activities first.
April 20, 2006 1:43:29 AM

Quote:
So you're admitting that Intel is taking a bath and will be until 2007? WHy are our large tech companies making such bad decisions? Wintel is just pretty sorry right now. Who wants to bet that at least two countries will find Intel in breach of monopoly laws and fine the hell out of them?


I not sure how to make you understand this. Intel can sell their processors cheaper and make less per processor as long as they continue to outsell AMD by a huge margin with volume buyers. If you call making $1.35 billion in net profits taking a bath, then yes, Intel will bathe until 2007. As far as monopoly laws, I imagine it will have about the same effect as monopoly lawsuits have had on Microsoft.
April 20, 2006 1:49:26 AM

Quote:


Th einteresting part of your response ifs that it mentions how much money Intel is hemorraging from Dell charging $499 for ANY computer. How much can they really be paying Intel per chip? That is the point ASP makes or breaks a CPU company just like margins do for OEMs. My theory is that if they are selling chips that cheap they will not make as much money. As far as the server space, Sun and HP are making a killing with Opterons and Data Centers want low power which Intel won't have for months and months. More money lost.

Period!


Well, considering me or you can buy a low end celeron chip for about $40 just imagine what kind of pricing Dell will get for buying thousands of them at once. While it is true the margins are much thinner on these chips, Intel knows what they have to charge to ensure an overall profitable product mix.

As far as the server space goes, I completely agree that AMD will have little to no competition from intel until woodcrest ships at year end.
April 20, 2006 1:51:14 AM

Quote:
Wintel is a catch phrase Linux users use to describe Intel and Microsoft based machines, not a alternate name for Intel.



Wintel was a MEDIA phrase that came about with the rise of AMD around 1998. It may be in Wikipedia. I don't remember it having anything to do with Linux.
April 20, 2006 1:52:04 AM

The anti-trust issue is in the works because of the Dell paperwork. Just wait and see on that one.

While market share may be growing and Intel says they are not losing it. That would be a lie. Market share no matter how large can still only be looked at as 100% If AMD is basically eating the new market share then that means that the numbers would offset and while Intel can still post similar revenue/profits. It would still have a market share loss.

Also, as i have said in many other posts. The home user is a pretty minimal part of the market share as a whole. Its the server market and workstation market that could seriously shift market share numbers. If many companies are buying their machines now. That means that it will be a while before they upgrade again. Which also means that a lot of those machines may have AMD in their bellies. While yes other companies will be buying later for when Intel regains the lead. It is the price points in general that will affect business purchases.
April 20, 2006 1:52:53 AM

Quote:
Actually it has alot more to do with Dell's direct to customer sales model and exceptional inventory control as opposed to what cpu they use.
That's a good point, but I doubt Dell would have made it as far as they have without Intel and say, with AMD.
April 20, 2006 2:13:10 AM

Quote:
It is the price points in general that will affect business purchases.


Yep. That's where Intel has the advantage. They can lower their prices due to their relative size. Large volume buys by universities, government agencies, large corporations, etc. I'm not sure of figures for servers, as far as proportion of total sales, but Intel really needs improvment in this segment.
April 20, 2006 2:18:46 AM

amd might have the best cpu's out there right now but Intel pwns them im the marketing and pricepoints department.

lol the last amd add i sawe was in a hockey game on the boards. whoever leads amd in that department should be shot and dryhumped.
April 20, 2006 2:22:33 AM

[uote="dvdpiddy"]Intel commited corporate suicide with the release of conroe benchmarks early.[/quote]

I don't understand why you would make such a statement. If indeed the Conroe performance level is what they say it is then it doesn't matter when the benchmarks are released. Don't get me wrong because I only use AMD myself, but AMD has nothing short term to compete assuming the number for Intel's Conroe hold up. Intel could regain alot of what they had lost to AMD and maybe even pick up a few AMD fan boys along the way. In the end it is all about price/performance and this go around Intel may hold all the keys.
April 20, 2006 2:30:11 AM

Quote:
the fact that Intel has no chips worth $1000 until Conroe (perhaps). And they're going to "give" them away for $500?


How many people do you think buy $1000 cpu's? This is good for Intel. It's not how much money Intel makes per chip. It's volume that rules. Intel is so much bigger with such larger market share that they can afford to sell their chips cheaper and still make a killing (8.9 billion) by selling tons of them. It's the same reason Wal-Mart can sell their stuff cheaper (ASP) than K-Mart and still make more money.


SO when Intel charged more it was becaue they were worth due to AMDs missteps and supply problems it was OK, but now that AMD can actually sell chips WORTH more for "heavy" use, it's the volume not the quality?
My point was WOW what are they doing at Intel? I guess they should have bought Alpha technology sooner? If AMD can get coprocessors out cheap in Q3, it will be even worse or heaven forbid Rev G Opterons (K8L ) AND coprocessors, it'll make SSE4 look like a pet project. Intel Lovers:

Be afraid. Be very very afraid!


JK. I have no allegiances as I have said before but several major news organizations reported AMD having 80% of US retail sales. That means the BestBuys and the CompUSAs. People know AMD especially if they use AMD at home and DellIntel at work. I don't wish to start flame wars, but the evidence for what I say is right there.

Maybe you should visit MiniMSFT and see how the other half is doing.
April 20, 2006 2:59:13 AM

Quote:
SO when Intel charged more it was becaue they were worth due to AMDs missteps and supply problems it was OK, but now that AMD can actually sell chips WORTH more for "heavy" use, it's the volume not the quality?


JK. I have no allegiances as I have said before but several major news organizations reported AMD having 80% of US retail sales. That means the BestBuys and the CompUSAs. People know AMD especially if they use AMD at home and DellIntel at work.


I'm not sure what you mean by the first part. As for the 80% of U.S. sales. I thought we already went over that. It's dirty statistics. If you've ever taken a statistics class you know that it's easy to make the numbers sound better than they are. I went to some of the websites claiming the 80% figure because I knew it had to be BS and they were definitely trying to give the appearance that AMD was doing much better than is reality by not including Dell. What kind of work do you do? I mean the majority of people at work use their computers for office programs, spreadsheet, proprietary database, forecating, etc. Even if AMD's current line can out-benchmark Intel's line clock for clock in games, I can't imagine that this would apply for most people at work. I work with both Intel and AMD at work and school and I have never been able to sit down at a computer and said to myself, " Well this computer must be a Intel/AMD", without checking the specs. Until the performance advantage of one company or the other becomes that pronounced, it will amount to fractions of a second for the common user and price will rule.
!