Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel + Core 2 = Q306 * .35

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 18, 2006 1:52:13 PM

On the front page of Tom's is an interesting story about Intel's Q3 revenues. Though they aren't down as much as Q2 they still reported 35% less revenue and less year on year growth.

This is probably in part due to starting a price war when 80-90% of your product is totally undercut by the competition.

Even with Woodcrest ramping faster int he server space, the volume is so much less that it won't make up for the P4 firesale.

I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Anyway, no I don't think they will BK. Times will just be tough.

More about : intel core q306

a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 2:09:21 PM

Quote:
On the front page of Tom's is an interesting story about Intel's Q3 revenues. Though they aren't down as much as Q2 they still reported 35% less revenue and less year on year growth.

This is probably in part due to starting a price war when 80-90% of your product is totally undercut by the competition.

Even with Woodcrest ramping faster int he server space, the volume is so much less that it won't make up for the P4 firesale.

I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Anyway, no I don't think they will BK. Times will just be tough.


Umm.. when you're converting from one architecture to another and slowly ramping up production you cannot expect your book to magically come alive.

Do you remember the first quarter when the K8 was released? AMD continued on with losses. It wasn't until the following quarter, once production was up and supply high enough that revenue's started to flow in pushing AMD back onto the positive side of the balance sheet.

Now if Intel's profits are down this quarter but they remain profitable then how can one conclude bankruptcy? One needs to take into account that any profit made takes all costs associated into account... thus if you're not losing money but making money.. bankruptcy is not even questionable.

Simple economics.. something Sharikou PhD and others do not understand and never will.

AMD Opteron released April, 2003 Which indicates that I should be looking at Q1 2003 results... but instead I'll focus on AMD's Q2, 2003 results to illustrate how much time it takes for a new product to gain widespread adoption.

AMD Q2 2003 Results

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, CA -- July 16, 2003 --AMD (NYSE:AMD) today reported sales of $645 million and a net loss of $140 million for the quarter ended June 29, 2003. The net loss amounted to $0.40 per share.


For those curious enough..

Quote:
In the first quarter of 2003, AMD reported sales of $715 million and a net loss of $146 million, or $0.42 per share.


These are LOSSES. Losses can bring about bankruptcy, not profits. Of course AMD balanced the books as production ramped up and as the K8 gained widespread industry acceptance.

See..
Quote:
SUNNYVALE, CA -- January 20, 2004 --AMD (NYSE:AMD) today reported sales of $1.206 billion and net income of $43 million for the quarter ended December 28, 2003. Net income amounted to $0.12 per share.


It wasn't until the 4th Quarter of 2004 that AMD returned to profitability. did they go bankrupt as they bled red for almost 4 years prior? No. Takes time to reverse a cycle.

Expect Q2 2007 results for Intel to be strong.
October 18, 2006 2:15:54 PM

Quote:
On the front page of Tom's is an interesting story about Intel's Q3 revenues. Though they aren't down as much as Q2 they still reported 35% less revenue and less year on year growth.

This is probably in part due to starting a price war when 80-90% of your product is totally undercut by the competition.

Even with Woodcrest ramping faster int he server space, the volume is so much less that it won't make up for the P4 firesale.

I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Anyway, no I don't think they will BK. Times will just be tough.


You have no clue what you are talking about, you may want to do some more reading on the subject before you make these ignorant comments. They arn't lossing money, they just arn't making as much as they were. Not only that but they made more money in the 3Q than was expected. They are also planning on cutting costs 2billion in 2007, 3billion in 2008. They also started restructuring in september. To me it looks like they may be doing very well for the next few years.
Related resources
October 18, 2006 2:20:16 PM

Actually, I believe he does know... but prefers to shade it as if they are hemorrhaging money going in the red...
October 18, 2006 2:21:33 PM

Remember lost 854 million the first quarter after A64 launch and continued to report heavy losses for the whole year.
And 854 million was a BIG portion of AMDs total net worth.
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 2:21:58 PM

Want to know how long AMD bled red?

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, CA -- January 16, 2003 --AMD (NYSE:AMD) today reported sales of $686,430,000 and a net loss of $854,740,000 for the quarter ended December 29, 2002.

Quote:
Sunnyvale, CA -- October 16, 2002 --AMD (NYSE:AMD) today reported sales of $508,227,000 and a net loss of $254,171,000, for the quarter ended September 29, 2002.

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, CA -- July 17, 2002 --AMD (NYSE:AMD) today reported sales of $600,299,000 and a net loss of $184,938,000, for the quarter ended June 30, 2002. The net loss amounted to $0.54 per share.

Quote:
SUNNYVALE -- April 17, 2002 --AMD today reported sales of $902,073,000 and a net loss of $9,163,000 for the quarter ended March 31, 2002. The net loss amounted to $0.03 per share.

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, CA -- January 16, 2002 --AMD today reported that net sales for the quarter ended December 30, 2001 grew by 24 percent sequentially. Led by record unit and record dollar sales of PC processors, AMD reported fourth quarter net sales of $951,873,000, which resulted in a net loss of $15,842,000, or $0.05 per share.

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, CA -- October 17, 2001 --AMD today reported results for the quarter ended September 30, 2001. Net sales for the third quarter of 2001 were $765,870,000, a decline of 22 percent compared with sales of $985,264,000 in the second quarter of 2001. AMD reported sales of $1,206,549,000 in the third quarter of 2000.
The pro forma net loss for the quarter, which excludes one-time charges, amounted to $97,424,000, which was equivalent to $0.28 per share.

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, CA -- July 12, 2001 --AMD today reported sales of $985,264,000 and net income of $17,352,000 for the quarter ended July 1, 2001.


So from Q2 2001 to Q4 2003 AMD was bleeding red. (Losses). Over a 5Year period AMD bled mainly red. That's pretty bad no? But yet no bankruptcy.

And you guys think a company like Intel with the resources of Intel still pulling profits is having a tough time? Gee whiz!
October 18, 2006 2:26:56 PM

They beat their own expectations. Nuff said.
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 2:28:44 PM

Final argument...
Quote:
Intel Third-Quarter Revenue $8.7 Billion ›
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct. 17, 2006 – Intel Corporation today announced third-quarter revenue of $8.7 billion, operating income of $1.4 billion, net income of $1.3 billion and earnings per share (EPS) of 22 cents.


So after paying all costs (operating etc) Intel made, $1.3 Billion. That's a profit. How is that an indication of tough times?

True Intel's profits are not as high as they were last year, but since last year AMD has taken up a lot of market share. Intel has just released a new architecture with no competitor at least until the 3rd Quarter of 2007. What do you think will happen to AMD's book?

You Fanboi's are just about the most useless, dumbest, lowest forms of life on earth. I'd wager that your collective IQ barely breaks 70. You truly do sicken me with your lack of common knowledge and understanding.

Yes, you really do piss me off AMD or Intel Fanboi alike. People with little to no understanding of a given subject should not comment on that given subject with an intent to inform others. Why? Because it ALWAYS ends up turning into mis-information & rumours that spread like a wild fire. :evil: 
October 18, 2006 2:41:12 PM

Quote:
On the front page of Tom's is an interesting story about Intel's Q3 revenues. Though they aren't down as much as Q2 they still reported 35% less revenue and less year on year growth.

This is probably in part due to starting a price war when 80-90% of your product is totally undercut by the competition.

Even with Woodcrest ramping faster int he server space, the volume is so much less that it won't make up for the P4 firesale.

I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Anyway, no I don't think they will BK. Times will just be tough.


You can give birth of a baby in 10 days. 8)
October 18, 2006 2:42:57 PM

Yeah, so Intel is making less money than they were before... but wait... they're making money!?!?!?... OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!...

Nothing to see here. Move along.
October 18, 2006 2:44:37 PM

I just hope AMD can launch an effective counter-attack and stay in the ring. If AMD goes down, which I suspect they won't, then we will have to pay sky high $$$ for CPUs, since Intel can dictate and control the whole market.

Though AMD has been caught by surprise with Intel's C2D offensive, it can still put a good fight, I hope, for us consumers. Otherwise, we will have another M$. Can anyone imagine how long it is taking for Vista to be ready? If they had a strong competitor breathing down their necks it will be a very different scenario.
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 2:48:32 PM

Quote:
Its an indication of tough times because they had to layoff thousands and cut millions in costs to get even to that figure. Dont get me wrong, its a bit tough for AMD right now too. I think both can be attributed to Intels lowballing price approach that forced the processor prices waaaaaay down. Its put a hurting on both companies.


Well obviously it's not hurting Intel as it met their estimates. If they can do this and remain profitable then I am eagerly anticipating AMD's numbers.

Are you naive enough to think that this is not part of Intel's strategy? It's quite simple, they foresaw these results (as per their estimates) and thus knew that in order to remain profitable they would need to shed away a large part of their workforce. Intel was bloated and inefficient. 90% of the workforce Intel released were marketing folks, the other 10% were mainly administrative folks and some Flash and Networking related employee's. They did not release any Processing engineers.

Intel is attempting to streamline their business and beat AMD on the Price/Performance front. It's working, with AMD's 65nm technology being late and forcing AMD to slash prices on their 90nm parts (Opteron's included) is putting quite a squeeze on AMD. AMD's numbers won't showcase these effects during their Q3 2006 announcement but it most definitely will affect their books come Q1 2007. Expect AMD to post some losses in 2007 even with the release of 65nm processors as Intel is likely to put an even tighter squeeze once they begin 45nm production in the second half of 2007.
October 18, 2006 3:06:25 PM

Well this thread certainly is flamebait... there should probably be a section for Intel / AMD market news :wink:
October 18, 2006 3:14:50 PM

Quote:
Well this thread certainly is flamebait...


Everything BaronMatrix posts is flamebait.
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 3:17:46 PM

Quote:
Well this thread certainly is flamebait... there should probably be a section for Intel / AMD market news :wink:


It's a delusional, biased, opinion based thread trying to pass as a factual outlook on Intel's current financial performance, outlook & business model.

I get angry, fanboi's can post whatever they like in so-called AMD vs. Intel threads. But to make an entire thread (although they're allowed to do so) with the intent of mis-informing THG members is sure to create strong opposition from the more knowledgeable members. Freedom of speech is to be respected, but it goes both ways. If you post utter BS expect other members to fight back and counter. Not only will this thread attract Intel fanboi's it also attract those of us with a more subjective, knowledgeable outlook on the market.

I'm not about to fall prey to an authoritarian fanboi regime trying to dictate opinion as fact and slowly brainwashing the masses to follow. It is my purpose to counter any fanboi comment. I will ALWAYS come on strong to quickly terminate and obliterate any extreme, non-factual, opinion based diatribe.
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 3:29:56 PM

Competition in a tight market is healthy. It forces innovation in both product and practices used to produce that product (manufacturing, distribution, etc.). It brings prices into line with the market pressures, which is to the benefit of the consumer, since they are getting a better product at a price that is closer to actual manufacturing cost.

When there is collusion or monopoly, though, the consumer suffers because of stagnated product development and inflated prices. The sad fact is that market forces in competition eventually fall into this model once a major market innovation has occured, either by winning enough market share to make their competition moot (and thus creating a monopoly in the market), or by forcing their competition into collusion, thereby fixing pricing and development so both companies can sustain profitability (thus creating an oligarchy in the market). Take a look at the operating system market, and you will see both of these forces at work. Microsoft dominates with a monopoly, while the companies that could offer viable competition (Apple, etc) have colluded with Microsoft by limiting their OS software to their hardware. Only Linux has been able to make any headway against Microsoft, and only because their business model completely contravenes traditional market forces (FREE???).

What we don't need happening is for PC CPU development to fall into this model. It almost happened in the early 90s when Intel was the only 800 pound gorilla on the block. Now that AMD has finally proven itself to be viable competition, Intel is just now trimming the fat and becoming a much leaner company, ready for competition. Call it the 750 pound gorilla now, but it's all lean muscle mass.

My recommendation to all of us consumers out there? Don't become company-centric. Fanboism should die in the box like outdated processor designs thrown by the wayside. Alternate your builds, using technology from both companies. Make them work to become a part of your next build. This way, market pressures will continue to force AMD and Intel to compete with each other, on product development, quality, and most significantly, price.
October 18, 2006 3:38:38 PM


Quote:
On the front page of Tom's is an interesting story about Intel's Q3 revenues. Though they aren't down as much as Q2 they still reported 35% less revenue and less year on year growth.

This is probably in part due to starting a price war when 80-90% of your product is totally undercut by the competition.

Even with Woodcrest ramping faster int he server space, the volume is so much less that it won't make up for the P4 firesale.

I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Anyway, no I don't think they will BK. Times will just be tough.

October 18, 2006 3:42:22 PM

Quote:
You Fanboi's are just about the most useless, dumbest, lowest forms of life on earth. I'd wager that your collective IQ barely breaks 70. You truly do sicken me with your lack of common knowledge and understanding.

Yes, you really do piss me off AMD or Intel Fanboi alike. People with little to no understanding of a given subject should not comment on that given subject with an intent to inform others. Why? Because it ALWAYS ends up turning into mis-information & rumours that spread like a wild fire. :evil: 

October 18, 2006 3:42:31 PM

If only the public was better informed than most of the media pundits spouting off their nonsense this whole world would be so much better. If there were no lawyers, no frivolous lawsuits, and pigs flying in the skies...

Sigh, will never happen.

Until then, we have to deal with BS opinions from obviously biased sources that while we know are not true, may trick some of the masses and thus cause a wrong pre-conception that would be harmful to society.

Free media blows, government controlled media also blows.
October 18, 2006 3:45:07 PM

Basically you don't like bullsh*t.
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 3:49:17 PM

Quote:
If only the public was better informed than most of the media pundits spouting off their nonsense this whole world would be so much better. If there were no lawyers, no frivolous lawsuits, and pigs flying in the skies...

Sigh, will never happen.

Until then, we have to deal with BS opinions from obviously biased sources that while we know are not true, may trick some of the masses and thus cause a wrong pre-conception that would be harmful to society.

Free media blows, government controlled media also blows.


I agree wholeheartedly to a point with your post.

We cannot stop others from spouting nonsense, it is a right afforded to them by freedom of speech. But we must call them on it, question their motives and offer a comprehensible fact-based response. We must also move fast as the longer we sit idle the more damage mis-information has. Some folks may only read the mis-information and not actually get around to read the facts.

This is the danger that is Fox News and in our IT world AMD/Intel fanboys.

The Media should ALWAYS be free. The government should NEVER have control of the Media save for regulatory ethical compliance (if they post a story it must be based on factual information found either from reliable sources and proven by black and white documentation or based on credible studies).
October 18, 2006 3:50:14 PM

Quote:
Final argument...
Intel Third-Quarter Revenue $8.7 Billion ›
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct. 17, 2006 – Intel Corporation today announced third-quarter revenue of $8.7 billion, operating income of $1.4 billion, net income of $1.3 billion and earnings per share (EPS) of 22 cents.


So after paying all costs (operating etc) Intel made, $1.3 Billion. That's a profit. How is that an indication of tough times?

True Intel's profits are not as high as they were last year, but since last year AMD has taken up a lot of market share. Intel has just released a new architecture with no competitor at least until the 3rd Quarter of 2007. What do you think will happen to AMD's book?



You Fanboi's are just about the most useless, dumbest, lowest forms of life on earth. I'd wager that your collective IQ barely breaks 70. You truly do sicken me with your lack of common knowledge and understanding.

Yes, you really do piss me off AMD or Intel Fanboi alike. People with little to no understanding of a given subject should not comment on that given subject with an intent to inform others. Why? Because it ALWAYS ends up turning into mis-information & rumours that spread like a wild fire. :evil: 

35% less money is tough times. If you are used to 35% more money then it is bad. I know Intel will be fine but this is their own doing. This price war is not stopping AMD from gaining share all over the world so it was a waste of money, first in that they made 55% less last quarter and second in that AMD still got Dell AND a LARGE chinese contract.


I guess when AMD posts their Q3 results i'll have something else to report. I think they have experienced moderate revenue growth but I can't say.
October 18, 2006 3:51:00 PM

You have a good grasp of what is going on Elmo, but I think people are missing one very vital point: Net Income DOES NOT = Profit necessarily. These are accounting numbers, and guess what all of accounting is? Estimates. While net income is certainly very relevant, it isn't the only thing that should be looked at. You can't pay expenses with profits, you can't pay expenses with revenues, you pay expenses with cash. If you really want a picture of how a company is doing, take the financial statements as a whole. Include everything, balance sheet, income statement, cash flow, and guess what else? The footnotes. Those footnotes tell you more about the company than possibly anything else. They are required to disclose so many details it is ridiculous. Companies can circumvent putting a lease obligation on the liabilities section of their balance sheet by structuring the transaction under the 4 qualifications for capital leases, but by law they have to disclose that if they do it.

So to make this relevant, lets go back and look at AMD's cash flow over the period Elmo brought up (good job, but missing an aspect necessary to explain why AMD is still here :wink: )

Cash flow statements are only done at year end FYI

Quote:

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
$289,839 (2003) $333,867 (2002) $591,457 (2001)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
$968,183 (2003) $289,839 (2002) $ 333,867 (2002)


We cannot use the 2002 and 2001 10-k due to the way audits are conducted and differences in the application of regulations. If we take these in concert we can see that AMD had enough cash to survive because in 2002, they issued $1B in debt. Companies do not go bankrupt easily, especially when they are big as AMD. Just because Intel's profits took a hit... doesn't mean jack. You are looking at the highest, most aggregated data (speaking to BM mainly) and it is impossible to draw any conclusions from it. You have to dig deeper, dig into segments, restructuring, ratios, footnotes, industry trends. There is a reason people do this as a full time job, because it takes that much time to really get down to the reason behind it all. We are making very wide sweeping generlization based on 3 or 4 numbers.... how pathetic.
October 18, 2006 3:53:09 PM

Quote:
You have a good grasp of what is going on Elmo, but I think people are missing one very vital point: Net Income DOES NOT = Profit necessarily. These are accounting numbers, and guess what all of accounting is? Estimates. While net income is certainly very relevant, it isn't the only thing that should be looked at. You can't pay expenses with profits, you can't pay expenses with revenues, you pay expenses with cash. If you really want a picture of how a company is doing, take the financial statements as a whole. Include everything, balance sheet, income statement, cash flow, and guess what else? The footnotes. Those footnotes tell you more about the company than possibly anything else. They are required to disclose so many details it is ridiculous. Companies can circumvent putting a lease obligation on the liabilities section of their balance sheet by structuring the transaction under the 4 qualifications for capital leases, but by law they have to disclose that if they do it.

So to make this relevant, lets go back and look at AMD's cash flow over the period Elmo brought up (good job, but missing an aspect necessary to explain why AMD is still here :wink: )

Cash flow statements are only done at year end FYI

[quote="AMD 2003 10-k"
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
$289,839 (2003) $333,867 (2002) $591,457 (2001)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
$968,183 (2003) $289,839 (2002) $ 333,867 (2002)


We cannot use the 2002 and 2001 10-k due to the way audits are conducted and differences in the application of regulations. If we take these in concert we can see that AMD had enough cash to survive because in 2002, they issued $1B in debt. Companies do not go bankrupt easily, especially when they are big as AMD. Just because Intel's profits took a hit... doesn't mean jack. You are looking at the highest, most aggregated data (speaking to BM mainly) and it is impossible to draw any conclusions from it. You have to dig deeper, dig into segments, restructuring, ratios, footnotes, industry trends. There is a reason people do this as a full time job, because it takes that much time to really get down to the reason behind it all. We are making very wide sweeping generlization based on 3 or 4 numbers.... how pathetic.[/quote]


Ummm, it was the only Intel story I saw......
October 18, 2006 3:56:36 PM

Intel did not have loses during Q3. They made over 1.3 Billion Dollars in profit. In fact their results beat every estimate on the street and their stock is up pretty big today. Their Q4 guidance looks very healthy and Core 2 was the fastest, most successful ramp in the company's history. And their efficency restructiring is almost done and people can really get back to work.

Looks like a good situation to me, not a dire one at all.
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2006 3:58:53 PM

Quote:
You have a good grasp of what is going on Elmo, but I think people are missing one very vital point: Net Income DOES NOT = Profit necessarily. These are accounting numbers, and guess what all of accounting is? Estimates. While net income is certainly very relevant, it isn't the only thing that should be looked at. You can't pay expenses with profits, you can't pay expenses with revenues, you pay expenses with cash. If you really want a picture of how a company is doing, take the financial statements as a whole. Include everything, balance sheet, income statement, cash flow, and guess what else? The footnotes. Those footnotes tell you more about the company than possibly anything else. They are required to disclose so many details it is ridiculous. Companies can circumvent putting a lease obligation on the liabilities section of their balance sheet by structuring the transaction under the 4 qualifications for capital leases, but by law they have to disclose that if they do it.

So to make this relevant, lets go back and look at AMD's cash flow over the period Elmo brought up (good job, but missing an aspect necessary to explain why AMD is still here :wink: )

Cash flow statements are only done at year end FYI

[quote="AMD 2003 10-k"
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
$289,839 (2003) $333,867 (2002) $591,457 (2001)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
$968,183 (2003) $289,839 (2002) $ 333,867 (2002)


We cannot use the 2002 and 2001 10-k due to the way audits are conducted and differences in the application of regulations. If we take these in concert we can see that AMD had enough cash to survive because in 2002, they issued $1B in debt. Companies do not go bankrupt easily, especially when they are big as AMD. Just because Intel's profits took a hit... doesn't mean jack. You are looking at the highest, most aggregated data (speaking to BM mainly) and it is impossible to draw any conclusions from it. You have to dig deeper, dig into segments, restructuring, ratios, footnotes, industry trends. There is a reason people do this as a full time job, because it takes that much time to really get down to the reason behind it all. We are making very wide sweeping generlization based on 3 or 4 numbers.... how pathetic.[/quote]

Exactly, which is why AMD did not go bankrupt and why it is un-reasonable to think Intel (the Semiconductor company with the largest liquid assets) won't be going bankrupt. Net Income means what is added to the Balance Sheet. It is added to the Liquid assets account. Net Loss is Income that is deducted from the Liquid assets account.

Both AMD and Intel have VERY rich investor's. They also have assets they could potentially borrow against to make large acquisition's (like AMD did when they mortgaged their FAB to buy ATi).

Point being that Intel is not suffering from any financial problems. True, net income is down compared to years before. But this is due to increased competition. They're still posting Net Income which is an indication of their business and financial strength.
October 18, 2006 4:00:15 PM

Quote:
Final argument...
Intel Third-Quarter Revenue $8.7 Billion ›
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct. 17, 2006 – Intel Corporation today announced third-quarter revenue of $8.7 billion, operating income of $1.4 billion, net income of $1.3 billion and earnings per share (EPS) of 22 cents.


So after paying all costs (operating etc) Intel made, $1.3 Billion. That's a profit. How is that an indication of tough times?

True Intel's profits are not as high as they were last year, but since last year AMD has taken up a lot of market share. Intel has just released a new architecture with no competitor at least until the 3rd Quarter of 2007. What do you think will happen to AMD's book?

You Fanboi's are just about the most useless, dumbest, lowest forms of life on earth. I'd wager that your collective IQ barely breaks 70. You truly do sicken me with your lack of common knowledge and understanding.

Yes, you really do piss me off AMD or Intel Fanboi alike. People with little to no understanding of a given subject should not comment on that given subject with an intent to inform others. Why? Because it ALWAYS ends up turning into mis-information & rumours that spread like a wild fire. :evil: 


I actually expect AMD to post a profit AGAIN. They still got Dell and a few other LARGE lucrative deals in China. They are selling every chip they mae accordign to the reported shoratges.

Again, why is everything that is negative about Intel cause such rabid responses. I'm sorry their revenue and profits are down, BUT THEY ARE AND IT'S 8O CPU NEWS.


I don't claim they will BK, but a company with no worries doesn't sell off companies and businesses.

Anytime you make less than the previous year it is a problem, not because they will need to go on corporate welfare but because costs go up every year for equipment, real estate and salaries.


I wish AMD and Intel the best but this price war was Intel's DUMB IDEA.
October 18, 2006 4:09:43 PM

Quote:
Its an indication of tough times because they had to layoff thousands and cut millions in costs to get even to that figure. Dont get me wrong, its a bit tough for AMD right now too. I think both can be attributed to Intels lowballing price approach that forced the processor prices waaaaaay down. Its put a hurting on both companies.


Well obviously it's not hurting Intel as it met their estimates. If they can do this and remain profitable then I am eagerly anticipating AMD's numbers.

There are a couple things that raise concern with me. Some have said, though I've seen no direct proof yet, that Intel has been selling some of the C2D cpu's below cost in order to cut away at AMD. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, its just business. If they still make some profit, despite being down in total profits, then they manage to hang on adn all is well and good.

But it does show a problem for the comsumers. When prices wars end, the costs of those cheap processors go back up to where they normally would be. It may be 6 months from now, maybe a year, but at some point the war will end and processors from both companies will rise again. What can the consumer do? Enjoy it while it lasts, knowing that it can't go on forever. Wish I could predict when it will end. Then I would buy the highest powered cpu that I could afford the day before. Oh where is my crystal ball? Since we don't have any crystal balls, just buy what you can while you can. Tomorrow, or next month, may be too late.
October 18, 2006 4:11:39 PM

Quote:
AMD still got Dell AND

What do you mean? :roll:
Are you claiming that AMD bought Dell?
or this is another prediction of yours?

Also, Intel's % are not equal to AMD's %, when you are BSing about money. Their actual financial numbers are X10 of AMD's.

Quote:
I wish AMD the best and Intel the worst but this price war was Intel's DUMB IDEA.

WOW, you really are a genius. Oh....I see, I can buy my CPU for half the price before the Intel's DUMB IDEA!
October 18, 2006 4:12:03 PM

Last time I checked, TG was about computers for computer geeks, since when did wall-street power players start coming in here doing analysis? Maybe I should have taken that job at Merril-Lynch...

Can we keep it simple? I didn't want to go into finance for a reason.

True, a company with no worries would not sell some of their buisnesses, and Intel recognizes that in the past couple of years there have been some major pressure on them. So this is their solution to it, which we don't know if its good or bad yet. So far, they seem to be coming back a bit from earlier in the year (according to the article) which means that they're doing something right but long term wise, we don't know.

Why can't AMD post a profit, if AMD didn't, then I would seriously be worried. Intel's posting a profit, AMD is posting a profit, everyone's profiting... whats the bad news here again? Intel's profit is lower than last year. That could be bad, but there are many many different factors that come into play. We might look back on this next year and be like, see, Intel just posted record high profits due to the price war, or the C2D, or whatever else.

Speculation is speculation. Intel won't go down anytime soon, nor will AMD. Therefore this thread is pointless.
October 18, 2006 4:20:36 PM

Quote:
AMD still got Dell AND

What do you mean? :roll:
Are you claiming that AMD bought Dell?
or this is another prediction of yours?

Also, Intel's % are not equal to AMD's %, when you are BSing about money. Their actual financial numbers are X10 of AMD's.

Quote:
I wish AMD the best and Intel the worst but this price war was Intel's DUMB IDEA.

WOW, you really are a genius. Oh....I see, I can buy my CPU for half the price before the Intel's DUMB IDEA!


Only an idiot stalker would read that and think it meant AMD bought Dell. If people were paying $500 for the top of the line last year they will again and like I said according to the new deals AMD has signed it (price war) is not stopping them from gaining market share.

I predicted that.
October 18, 2006 4:28:57 PM

I agree, completely Ninja
October 18, 2006 4:29:23 PM

Quote:
Only an idiot stalker would read that and think it meant AMD bought Dell.

Oh.....are Dell going to sell only AMD systems?

Quote:
If people were paying $500 for the top of the line last year

Wellcome to the year of 2006!

Quote:
I predicted that.
Yes, Nostradamus, yes! please predict if tomorow the sun will rise.
October 18, 2006 4:40:58 PM

Quote:
.

I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Anyway, no I don't think they will BK. Times will just be tough.


Kinda hard to BK when you are still making over a billion in profit per quarter eh? Intel is losing revenue and has pressure on its margin but is still turning a fairly large profit. Anyhow I'm willing to bet AMD's margins are going to take a hit this quarter with the fire sale mode they are in as well (I gues we'll see in a few hours eh?).
October 18, 2006 4:47:05 PM

Quote:
Its an indication of tough times because they had to layoff thousands and cut millions in costs to get even to that figure. Dont get me wrong, its a bit tough for AMD right now too. I think both can be attributed to Intels lowballing price approach that forced the processor prices waaaaaay down. Its put a hurting on both companies.


Here's the best post of the day. Do you realize that the restructuring efforts actually cost quite a bit of money? Not only did the entire company have to spend time figuring out who and what to cut, but when people were layed off, the minimum severance package was 2 months of pay (at least that was what was mentioned in the public press release...who knows if that actually happened).

The Price war and excess inventory of old P4 chips probably didn't help their profits either. But here's the thing, they still beat expectations (by quite a bit, actually). The benefits from the cuts really won't be realized until Q4, 2007 and 2008 - hence the pretty positive outlook on Q4 expected earnings.
October 18, 2006 5:01:13 PM

Quote:
.

I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Anyway, no I don't think they will BK. Times will just be tough.


Kinda hard to BK when you are still making over a billion in profit per quarter eh? Intel is losing revenue and has pressure on its margin but is still turning a fairly large profit. Anyhow I'm willing to bet AMD's margins are going to take a hit this quarter with the fire sale mode they are in as well (I gues we'll see in a few hours eh?).


Obviously English is not your first language. I said NO THEY WON'T BK.
October 18, 2006 5:01:31 PM

Quote:
Anytime you make less than the previous year it is a problem, not because they will need to go on corporate welfare but because costs go up every year for equipment, real estate and salaries.


You are stupid. So what if costs go up.... you are taking a very narrow view of economics. There are variable and fixed costs, therefore if you sell less you will have less variable costs, but fixed costs will remain the same. So while it is a problem that might have sold less, but why did you sell less? Did the market shrink? Did your market share decline? Did you spend more on materials? Was labor out of control? Or were your operations more efficient, you just had restructuring costs? There are 1000 different reasons for declines in profit, so pull your head more than 2 inches off the ground to look at thie big picture....
October 18, 2006 5:04:22 PM

Quote:
Anytime you make less than the previous year it is a problem, not because they will need to go on corporate welfare but because costs go up every year for equipment, real estate and salaries.


You are stupid.I guess it was easy to figure out.

Quote:
so pull your head more than 2 inches off the ground to look at thie big picture....

let me post the picture:
October 18, 2006 5:07:35 PM

Exactly what I am trying to drive at, there is a reason for Intel's decline in profits. They went on a hiring spree a few years ago and now its coming back to bite them, but they are dealing with it. Just like GM and Ford are having to restructure, so is Intel. It is a function of the market and not something to blow out of proportion... Take it in stride and realise they are working on the problem and not spiraling out of control.
October 18, 2006 5:12:08 PM

Quote:
Only an idiot stalker would read that and think it meant AMD bought Dell.

Oh.....are Dell going to sell only AMD systems?


No.. and we all know that. However they are going to sell AMD systems which is a revenue stream that was not open to AMD before. You've got to admit they have broken into one of Intels areas here. End of the day though its what people order from Dell that is going to decide that one.

The price war is having an impact on BOTH companies. The current effect of cheaper processors is great (although I still can't aford a new rig :( ) but you do wonder how hard both sides will push. I dont see this as a death match just yet.

Now can we please get back to nerdy geeky things.. prefrably with the risk of electricution or loud bangs.. All that talk of money is just making me feel poor! :cry: 
October 18, 2006 6:05:08 PM

Quote:
Anytime you make less than the previous year it is a problem, not because they will need to go on corporate welfare but because costs go up every year for equipment, real estate and salaries.


You are stupid. So what if costs go up.... you are taking a very narrow view of economics. There are variable and fixed costs, therefore if you sell less you will have less variable costs, but fixed costs will remain the same. So while it is a problem that might have sold less, but why did you sell less? Did the market shrink? Did your market share decline? Did you spend more on materials? Was labor out of control? Or were your operations more efficient, you just had restructuring costs? There are 1000 different reasons for declines in profit, so pull your head more than 2 inches off the ground to look at thie big picture....


Not! I am not spreading doom and gloom, Intel is on shaky ground right now because of their own actions. In now way did I imply that they would "run out of money" but they will lose a HEFTY part of their war chest by this time next year.
October 18, 2006 6:21:45 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Not! I am not spreading doom and gloom, Intel is on shaky ground right now because of their own actions. In now way did I imply that they would "run out of money" but they will lose a HEFTY part of their war chest by this time next year.


So, if AMD's Q3 2006 is not equal to Q3 2005, then what does that mean to AMD? Would that mean that the ground is not shaky, but eroding?

I mean, they have a HEFTY merger bill to pay off, they have FAB upgrades that need to be paid off, they have a new FAB in NY to consider, and they still haven't really released any new products this year to compete with C2D.

So, if Intel will lose a HEFTY part of their war chest because they were 35% below year to year, what will it mean if AMD doesn't meet or are even 10% below year to year?
October 18, 2006 6:39:10 PM

Quote:
I expect the losses to continue through Q207. It may be Q307 if they don't EOL NetBust REALLY SOON.

Quote:
I am not spreading doom and gloom, Intel is on shaky ground right now because of their own actions. In now way did I imply that they would "run out of money" but they will lose a HEFTY part of their war chest by this time next year.
Oh dear, this is embarrassing. Unlike some, I’ve never been bothered by your posts before, but this is so wrong it’s just plain embarrassing. Intel’s massive profits have been reduced, so now they are actually a bit short of making an obscene amount of money per quarter. Not exactly losses! Their war chest is still increasing not decreasing. The only thing I see decreasing is your understanding of economics. Shall we start a fund to pay for the good Baron to attend Economics 101! I’m in for 1 Euro.
October 18, 2006 7:10:04 PM

/agreed

I am attempting to dis spell lies, because I know there are people who just read threads and may not realize how ridiculous his posts are, so I make the points not for those who know BM, but for those who do not.

Toss in maybe common sense 101 too. 8O
October 18, 2006 7:15:58 PM

AMD's Earnings Conference Call is at 5:30 (Eastern) today, so we should have more information for comparisons later.
October 18, 2006 7:19:10 PM

Intel should go into the oil buisness for a couple of years, make a couple hundred billion in revenue, and then laugh in AMD's face.

AMD could counter, go into real-estate, and make a killing in the highest return per-capita market.

And then we would all be stuck with Transmeta and Via chips.
October 19, 2006 3:30:02 AM

Maybe he is holding them upside down and that is why AMD looks so good and Intel will go bust.
October 19, 2006 4:43:13 AM

And basically, if you add up AMD's profit/loss, the resulting would be profit, where it not in the negative...

Intel's profit every year was in the black, with many billions made free and clear.
October 19, 2006 4:44:36 AM

Quote:
Maybe he is holding them upside down and that is why AMD looks so good and Intel will go bust.


Lmfao, well put.

-Jack

Amazingly obvious result, maybe even BM will understand it 8O . i want to go back and figure out what cause that rapid swing in AMD's profit, but honeslty I am lazy and I need to do homework.
October 19, 2006 4:58:43 AM

Nothing like some Grade A dumbassery to brighten up the place...
!