Is there ANYONE who can convince you guys of the different cost sructure for the two companies. AMD can make a lot less and still break even. Intel can't. Yes they have more money but they also have more bills.
More bills? You mean to power the fabs and stuff? Okay, I'll give you that intel has more fabs and employees, but AMD just recently added, what, somewhere along 5.4B (ATI merger) + 4 or 5B (NY Fab) to their tab. Not to mention the fab upkeep at Dresden, and the conversion, as well. Looks like AMDs bills are the same as intel's, or even more. Can they still break even?
13 weeks Ending 2006-07-02
Intel: / AMD:
Revenue = 8,009.00. / 1,216.37
Operating costs = 6,937.00. / 1,114.26
Operationg revenue = 1,072.00. / 102.11
Income before taxes = 1,253.00. / 114.33
Income after taxes = 885.00. / 96.03
Net income = 885.0 / 88.85
Yeah, intel's hurting to pay those bills.
Most analysts predict growing AMD market share especially in servers. As the new low cost low power chips become mroe abundant, P4 will lose more sales and Core 2 still has to ramp.
Core 2 already is ramping, at a nice pace, too. The only thing that isn't ramping quickly is Kentsfield and Cloverton, since chipsets are being produced at certain fabs to meet demand. But, that's not saying Quads aren't being made and sampled. Also, if Kentsfield can run on existing i975x chipsets, that makes it alot easier to not push a new chipset line. With Core 2 for servers (Woodcrest) that ramped along with Conroe, so I have no idea where you're getting it "needs to ramp" idea.
OEMs and retailers have n fear of placing AMD boxes in the "front of the store." They have sold well and will continue. By cancelling 95 chips AMD has saved themselves probably hundreds of millions of dollars.
Uh, okay. Not sure what the whole store front thing was about, but AMD cancelling 95 chips without a newer substitute for 939, other than AM2, was a bit surprising. I figured they'd lose the single core, but push more dual core CPUs, until 65nm transition was complete. I don't know how much they actually saved, but millions of dollars might be a tad much. Maybe 2 million, but not 10 million. Which is gone, either way to pay off loan for merger.
Also by Q1 07 Ati income will be in AMDs pocket while it's more than likely that nVidia will charge nice fat licensing fees for SLI. Since it iwll e awhile before a lot of SLI/Crossfire boards are even available much less low priced, AMD will have made more sales through SIMPLE PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION.
ATIs sales might dwindle without intel support, since it did generate 80% of ATIs sales. Now, if AMD/ATI have a plan in place or in the works before the merger, it might help them (AMD), but with nVidia working with intel for SLI, and if nVidia does raise it's licensing fees to AMD, that leaves AMD with ATI only. I still don't see where simple product differentiation comes from, all I see is a bill from TMSC and UMC for ATIs chips being added to AMDs bill, until a fab is built to create both GPUs and CPUs.
I would hate to have to sell Intel right now. How do you market the various chips?
How do you market the various chips? Easy:
Want the fastest CPU around, and price is not an issue? X6800 is for you.
Want something fast, but not too expensive? X6700 is for you.
Want something that has a great price/performance value? X6600 is for you.
Want to create a mid-level budget system without breaking the bank? X6400 is for you.
Want a nice low/mid-budget system? X6300 is for you.
That's not that hard to do.
What is AMD doing to push their products, other than slashing them to the point where profit might not be generated at all. Is slashing the price on the 939s a real deal, when the next upgrade for AM2 means new CPU and memory? Sure, you can keep that 939 a little longer, but when you upgrade, you're buying the same memory type as the C2D, but the system you get might not be as fast/powerful as the C2D. Oh, but you can drop a few grand on 4X4, but we might discontinue that once AM3 arrives, in 2007, sometime.
Please...you've said you're against intel, for whatever reason, but don't try to make them as the ones in the red, or losing wads of cash. They have more than 2 fabs running, they don't rely on foundries for some of their products, they didn't drop almost 10B on mergers/fabs in one year, and I seriously doubt they have problems paying their bills (which by the way, most of the cost of water would be lowered, since they reclaim water in fabs).
I guess it depends on if we're talkign about operatng income or net profits. Net profits I believe is $880,000,000 for AMD.
Financials Quarterly (Jul '06) Annual (2005) Income Statement
(in millions of USD)
Total Revenue 1,216.37 5,847.58
Gross Profit 690.31 2,391.76
Operating Income 102.11 231.66
Net Income 88.85 165.48
Source:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=amd&hl=en
When? I think you're thinking about GROSS profits, and not either operation profits or net profits.
Source:
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&cid=327