Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core2 released, AMD tanks, AMD buys ATI 2 survive, ATI tanks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 7, 2006 3:10:00 PM

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5245

Quote:
In the discrete mobile segment, ATI saw shipments decline dramatically on a quarterly basis while Nvidia saw shipments increase sequentially. Nvidia grew discrete mobile segment share from 37% in Q1’06 to 53% in Q3’06. ATI’s segment share fell from 63% in Q2’06 to 47% in Q3’06.


AMD just cant get a break :lol: 
December 7, 2006 3:14:51 PM

Holy flying batcrap. Who's running AMD these days? Is it possible that Ken Lay faked his death and went to work for AMD? :twisted:
December 7, 2006 3:52:18 PM

Hector, that tells everything you need to know I guess
Related resources
December 7, 2006 3:52:32 PM

Wow, the title of this thread shocked me into looking at it...
-cm
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 7, 2006 5:12:43 PM

Yeah whats up with the tittle?

Could ATI result be explained by the wait for their DX10 parts? or are those result for 'earlier' financial quarter?
December 7, 2006 5:14:03 PM

What are you implying?
-cm
December 7, 2006 5:24:27 PM

Q2-Q3.. explains it fairly well... with the transition and uncertainty they were bound to take a hit. Let's see what happens in a couple of months though...

Rmr... DX10 is a non-factor at this moment, since it only caters to a niche market...
December 7, 2006 5:53:12 PM

probably should wait till amd releases K8L before you declare amd dead. fact of the matter is that intel and amd are in the same tug of war that ati and nvidia are in.
December 7, 2006 5:58:42 PM

Couldn't you say it's a factor because it will clearly be huge to PC gaming (which itself is pretty niche, I guess)? You can't discount something because it isn't here yet...
-cm
December 7, 2006 6:20:33 PM

This is a stupid thread.

Both AMD and ATI are a little behind right now. Not to mention AMD perchaced ATI. I think your reading just what you want out of that. AMD did get a big break they were able to get a huge video and chipset department. Course its not like they can buy them and instantly be using its potential.
December 7, 2006 6:23:13 PM

Eh, just meant right at this moment. I'm saying that DX10 isin't what's increasing nVidia's share or anything, and when ATI comes out with it's R600 chip I don't expect that to really influence it's market share value either...
December 7, 2006 6:37:24 PM

ATI needs R600, and they need it to beat 8800, AMD needs K8L, and they need it to beat Conroe, it's as simple as that. Either they do it or they shall be crushed.
December 7, 2006 6:43:09 PM

there is no doubt the r600 is going to beat the current nvidia chips just like i have no doubt hte next nvidia chips will beat the ati cards coming out now. and that will not crush either of them.

Same goes for the k8l they need to make a fast compatable cpu that does what it says at a price point that makes sense thats all they NEED to do. Unfortanitly since AMD decided they want to take intel head on in the fanboy department yes it has to crush conrea.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
December 7, 2006 7:13:37 PM

Title is way off. I'm pretty sure AMD bought ATI BEFORE Core came out. (if it didn't, they came together pretty quick.) I also don't belive that AMD bought ATI to survive Core.
December 7, 2006 7:23:34 PM

Quote:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5245

In the discrete mobile segment, ATI saw shipments decline dramatically on a quarterly basis while Nvidia saw shipments increase sequentially. Nvidia grew discrete mobile segment share from 37% in Q1’06 to 53% in Q3’06. ATI’s segment share fell from 63% in Q2’06 to 47% in Q3’06.


AMD just cant get a break :lol:  A very unintellegent statement given the following: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/21/darpa_petascale...
http://www.ornl.gov/ornlhome/print/press_release_print....
http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/research/users/features/trac...
http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/1099300.html
http://www.supercomputingonline.com/article.php?sid=124...
http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/701937.html
http://www.lbl.gov/CS/Archive/news081006.html
http://www.linuxhpc.org/stories.php?story=06/06/27/1618...
http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-1...
http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb091206-story01.html I count 10 contracts for AMD for computers that will be in the Top15, 1 for IBM and none for Intel. Total is a little over $1.2 billion for AMD based supercomputers. That means Intel is left looking for scraps. Don't give the excuse that Core 2 wasn't around , it was. The most prestigeous benchmarks are awarded by IEEE/DARPA and the cutoff date was OCT 26.2006. Results , take a look:
http://www.hpcchallenge.org/ I see 8 placements for IBM and 4 for AMD out of twelve, 0 for Intel.

If you haven't figured it out yet in the HPC market which is where about 37% of profits are with 3% of sales , Intel is DOA. Gaming is less than .1% or 60% of the value of either the IBM P7 or Cray Cascade contracts by themselves. Ignoring a market segment that acounts for 37% of profits for the manufacturers(becuase they get the full sales price and don't have to split with wholesalers) is more than misleading.

AS for ATI, Stream is where the money is right now. http://www.hpcchallenge.org/ Considering that one of these cards sells for about $2500-$4000 depending on configuration and no middle men to take a cut. That means that each of these cards is worth as much profitwise as 10-15 of nVidia's 8800s. Those are on the market and in short supply. Stanford University will give you a concise description of the problem facing nVidia:
"Which cards are supported?
We now support serveral classes of GPU boards, including X1600, X1800, and X1900 class GPU's from ATI. At the launch, we supported X1900 cards only. X1800 cards do not provide the performance seen in X1900's and so we strongly recommend X1900 class cards (although we now officially support X1800). X1900 and X1800 cards are actually quite different -- they have different processors (R520, R530 vs. the R580 [in the X1900 series]). The R580 makes a huge difference in performance -- its 48 pixel shaders are key, as we use pixel shaders for our computations.

"What about video cards with other (non-ATI) chipsets?
The R580 (in the X1900XT, etc.) performs particularly well for molecular dynamics, due to its 48 pixel shaders. Currently, other cards (such as those from nVidia and other ATI cards) do not perform well enough for our calculations as they have fewer pixel shaders. Also, nVidia cards in general have some technical limitations beyond the number of pixel shaders which makes them perform poorly in our calculations. " http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-ATI.html

So basicly Intel and nVidia face some tough engineering problems for uses in the real world outside of gaming. At SC06, Ken Kennedy(you don't know who he is look up his bio at the IEEE website) put it rather bluntly for Intel they have the memory on the wrong side of the CPU. With the northbridge in the way between the memory and the cpu Intel is not very successful in running GPU accleration and can't run the IBM Cell BE as an accelerator. A single core opteron with GPU acceleration is about 400GFLOPS or 10X Intel's Core 2. K8L with HTT 3.0 will allow the GPU to access the system memory and not be limited by onboard memory. K8L is the basis for the Cray XT4 and puts Intel further behind in the HPC market. Intel didn't even have a conceptual offering to compete with the IBM P7 or Cascade. Sun did have a new version of SPARC.

Mark Twain put it best : "there are lies , damned lies, and statistics."
December 7, 2006 7:42:16 PM

Quote:
I count 10 contracts for AMD for computers that will be in the Top15, 1 for IBM and none for Intel. Total is a little over $1.2 billion for AMD based supercomputers. That means Intel is left looking for scraps.


lol

$1.2 billion in supercomputers... but AMD only gets $20 million of that since they just sell processors, not deliver the big iron. AMD probably gets less than that since they certainly sold the processors at steep discount in order to get some good press.

Super computers are in the noise as far as corporate earnings go.
December 7, 2006 7:52:24 PM

Companies loose millions every day on the stock market. This is the nature of the beast "Free enterprise"

If gas, electric, food prices, and taxes keep going up and putting a huge burden on the middle class.......the whole middle class in America might tank.

Look at what is happening to Ford Motor Company. I doubt they are gonna tank.


S@%T Happens get over it!
December 7, 2006 7:52:29 PM

It's just plain bad luck!

nVidia have made an exceptional efford in the mobile graphics area, currently having the two fastest solutions, so that accounts for the great loss in that area. After all gamers want the fastest, also in their notebooks.

In normal cards nVidia have also had both top cards, and for a long time, the best cost/performance, plus SLi(that requiers at least two cards) have had a better time than Crossfire.

But as one of the commenters to the original article wrote the picture doesn't include all areas. Just the PC market. Among other things the revenue/marketshare, from the graphic chips in the Wii and XBox 360, seems to be lacking. I know nVidia supply the PS3, but I doubt that can follow the number of chips the two other will need.

So I doubt ATI is actually loosing that much market, it might have shifted a bit at the moment, but next generation is just around the corner and the pc graphics market might just shift back with it.
December 7, 2006 8:58:33 PM

Intersting, so I guess AMD and ATI are going out of business. Get a damn life guys. Just because AMD might not be the leader of the enthusiast sector, doesn't mean they are not selling everything they can make. Because they are selling everything that rolls out of the fabs. As far as ATI, who cares if they have lost a little ground over the past year. They will gain it back, this has been going on for how long now? Short of a natural disaster wiping ATI and AMD out, they will be around for quite some time in the future. I assume this thread is supposed to be a stab at Baron, or the few others like him.

Rather than making a case based on just the percentage of increase and decline of sector shipments, how about we look at the big picture? ATI is supplying the GPU's for the #1 and #2 selling consoles on the market. So, in that segment, ATI is beating the hell out of Nvidia. I am not going to be able to look up all the profit and loss in on ATI atm, but I will just to prove the fanboys on this thread who have posted wrong. R600 will be out soon, and it will probably outpace the G80, then Nvidia will bump the core/memory speed up to outpace the R600 cards by a marginal amount. Same story, different year.

As far as AMD, even though they do not have the fastest desktop cpu's, they are still breaking into new boxmakers. Dell, HP/Compaq just to name two. The list goes on and on.... I don't see how they are going out of business when they sell everything they can produce. I doubt they are sitting by idle while Intel continues to compete in the business.

All of this aside, I guess I should come to expect this from this forum. You have the people like Baron, who just don't know, and argue for the sake of arguing. Then, the rest, that just antagonize him, read some article, and post it while not even knowing the big picture, and not really caring. Atleast when I post something that could be negative about one company or the other.... I am looking for input to see if I am interpreting the information correct. I am not posting it just to start wars, and have people like ycon and whoever else just reinforce my incorrect assumptions.

wes
December 7, 2006 9:00:57 PM

amen.


Course they got into compaq computers years ago about the time athlon first came out. Interesting enough thats exactly when they lost thier #1 spot as OEM computer manu. Not that im going to go as far as to say that is why i just threw it in there lol.
December 7, 2006 9:15:11 PM

Yeah, I think they lost it for other reasons, but HP overtook Dell as the largest supplier, so... I guess that makes up for it.

I just get tired of titles like this, and people posting garbage. You have all the hipcrits on here, that come to the defense of Intel whenever someone posts false info.... but when crap like this pops up.... all the sheep just tag along like it is cool. I try to give credit where it is due.

Intel is doing great, they got rid of netburst, they made something worth buying. If I were building a new system, it would be core 2. But, just because Core 2 is faster for desktops, doesn't mean they own all sectors. AMD has been playing catch up to Intel for years.... and to date, they have been doing a pretty good job. AMD is still gaining ground, and are expected to still gain ground in 07. Maybe not in the enthusiast sector.... but like we all should know.... we are a very SMALL area of the overall market. Now, if AMD tries to milk K8 for another couple of years.... well, then they deserve the same thing that happend to Intel.

I will stop ranting.

wes

Edit: AMD sales up 32% from Q3 05 to Q3 06. AMD no longer has the memory business losing money.... so that should help a bit. Gross margin has dropped a little bit due to the price wars, but now that Intel has cleared old stock, it is possible that the margins for both shops might start to increase again. And, with AMD releasing 65nm, they should be able to either continue the price war, while making the same or a little more, or if the price war stops, they will just make more money.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
December 7, 2006 9:20:44 PM

Quote:
HP overtook Dell as the largest supplier,



OMG, DELL IS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. THEY'VE LOST THE NUBMER ONE SPOT. SELL YOUR SHARES NOW!!!!!!

lol.....
December 7, 2006 9:25:58 PM

Quote:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5245

In the discrete mobile segment, ATI saw shipments decline dramatically on a quarterly basis while Nvidia saw shipments increase sequentially. Nvidia grew discrete mobile segment share from 37% in Q1’06 to 53% in Q3’06. ATI’s segment share fell from 63% in Q2’06 to 47% in Q3’06.


AMD just cant get a break :lol: 
December 7, 2006 9:32:05 PM

Good one, I never looked at it that way.... since I am such a loyal HP buyer(sarcasm), you are probably correct. Dell is done, they are going out of business since they have lost ground. They should stop selling computers. Stick to rebranded monitors or something. Poor Dell, I can't wait for the going out of business sale!! Cheap core 2 cpu's for all!!

wes
December 7, 2006 9:33:39 PM

Quote:
I count 10 contracts for AMD for computers that will be in the Top15, 1 for IBM and none for Intel. Total is a little over $1.2 billion for AMD based supercomputers. That means Intel is left looking for scraps.


lol

$1.2 billion in supercomputers... but AMD only gets $20 million of that since they just sell processors, not deliver the big iron. AMD probably gets less than that since they certainly sold the processors at steep discount in order to get some good press.

Super computers are in the noise as far as corporate earnings go. Ah unresearched response typical poster here who knows nothing and thinks he knows everything.If you had checked the US government contracts posted on the web , you would know tht the cpu upgrade for Red Storm (Clawhammer 130nm 146's to Denmark 185's) 13,000 cpu's. was $15 million. That is an ASP of $1100.
"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A $15 million upgrade to Sandia's Red Storm computer has increased its peak speed from 41.5 to 124.4 teraflops in a computing terrain in which a single teraflop was a big deal only 6 years ago." nsinger@sandia.gov

I have textbooks in geology and anatomy You can certainly use them.
December 7, 2006 9:34:34 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I think they lost it for other reasons, but HP overtook Dell as the largest supplier, so... I guess that makes up for it.

I just get tired of titles like this, and people posting garbage. You have all the hipcrits on here, that come to the defense of Intel whenever someone posts false info.... but when crap like this pops up.... all the sheep just tag along like it is cool. I try to give credit where it is due.

Intel is doing great, they got rid of netburst, they made something worth buying. If I were building a new system, it would be core 2. But, just because Core 2 is faster for desktops, doesn't mean they own all sectors. AMD has been playing catch up to Intel for years.... and to date, they have been doing a pretty good job. AMD is still gaining ground, and are expected to still gain ground in 07. Maybe not in the enthusiast sector.... but like we all should know.... we are a very SMALL area of the overall market. Now, if AMD tries to milk K8 for another couple of years.... well, then they deserve the same thing that happend to Intel.

I will stop ranting.

wes

:lol:  I just want to highlight these two phrases because they're both VERY TRUE and most people here mess around arguing about these topics.
Intel is in luckily good health now and this is obvious, the second thing is less obvious but if you just think AMD is selling everything they produce up to the point of pronounced shortages, I'd not see them as dead, not at all. The world of possibilities is getting bigger and now there is a huge eastern market in exponential growth and since most of it is old or value CPUs, AMD is getting great momentum. I live in an eastern Europe country and this year I am seeing much more Athlons than P4s on the shelves.
December 7, 2006 9:34:40 PM

Rebranded monitors? Apple uses their monitors (and older ones at that). Dell displays are among the best I have seen (for the large segment 24-30in).
December 7, 2006 9:40:50 PM

I think you took my comment the wrong way. I use a Dell monitor, the 20.1, I bought it 1.5 years ago. Great monitor, I don't care if they rebrand them, just as long as they are price and performance competitive, which it seems they are. The reason I made the statement is because, I don't know who makes them, but Dell seems to be pretty competitive in that area.

wes

Edit: and to the rest, even if AMD didn't sell a single cpu in the enthusiast sector, at 1/10th of a percent of the cpu market.... if they can continue to break open markets, they would be fine. Once again, WE ARE A SMALL MARKET.
December 7, 2006 9:48:04 PM

We are a small market? With the way we all talk and demand from large companies, I would have figured we are the largest, most important market for PC manufacturers and retailers.
December 7, 2006 9:54:47 PM

Quote:
Couldn't you say it's a factor because it will clearly be huge to PC gaming (which itself is pretty niche, I guess)? You can't discount something because it isn't here yet...
-cm


I for one - is looking forward to ATI's RD600/R600 answer to the
680i/8800GTX - If it delivers - will be a huge hit -

But - it's a one time deal - There is nothing after R600 - for Intel
machines - So the next quarter may be fine - but what's after that?
December 7, 2006 9:56:24 PM

One other thing on G80, I haven't been able to find any hard facts on folding, just alot of speculation that the GPU might not be well suited for the application folding@home. But, who knows, we will find out eventually.

In response to Comptia_Red. I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic, but it seems you were, the reason I made this comment about the enthusiast being a small market, is because people seem to act like if Intel is our best choice, then AMD is going out of business. They act as if there are no other places they sell cpu's. That's all.

wes

EDIT: ATI Q3 revenues are up 23% in comparison to Q3 2005. ATI also hit a quarterly record for total number of units shipped. Doesn't sound like they are stumbling to me.
December 8, 2006 12:07:29 AM

Quote:
This is a stupid thread.

Both AMD and ATI are a little behind right now. Not to mention AMD perchaced ATI. I think your reading just what you want out of that. AMD did get a big break they were able to get a huge video and chipset department. Course its not like they can buy them and instantly be using its potential.


ATI can become an ancor around AMDs neck and vice versa. Intel just had to sell off a bunch of underperforming bussinesses that it acquired. ATI is a big purchase with much risk. ATI was abviously bought for a reason. That was to integrate a system on a chip (for Asia's cheapo market/mobile) and so they would not have to rely on a 3rd party for a chipset.

I would say that if Intel's 45nm quad cores releases in numbers within a couple months of AMD's 65nm quad and beats it, this will really hurt AMD who is building a new fab in NY for future sales it might not get. So if this happens what does AMD do? What if ATI is losing ground? What if ATI is doing good?

AMD can't really just sell off ATI GPU division if it is doing poorly yet it will drag AMD down fast/further if they are falling behind Intel.

If ATI GPUs are doing great and AMD is falling behind will AMD try to please their shareholders and become a GPU company primarily that makes low end CPUs for a niche market thus cutting their CPU division back to save money.?( Cyrix comes to mind ) Maybe their roadmap is not feasable and this is why they bought ATI while their stock was still high and they could. Maybe this is the last ditch effort to create the next great thing to take on Intel ( CPU/GPU/NB hybrid PC ).

Right now AMD is sucking hard and the 4X4 release smells of preparation for disaster. Say AMDs Quad Core is 15% slower than Intels Quad Core, at least AMD could say "just buy a 4X4 solution and be 60% faster than anything Intel has".

Fact is nobody knows what AMDs quad core can do. This is a bad sign for AMD. If they could prove their processor is better than Intels current Quad core they would so that people would wait to spend money on their product. Fact is that 6 months from release AMD can't show us that it is better, hmmm.
December 8, 2006 1:17:16 AM

For another opinion, Link to "A Bad Week..."

Bad news on top of bad news. If AMD doesn't turn this around, it will likely be banished to being small player. Not this year, not next year but in the future.

Huge deals to sell CPU's to Dell and HP don't necessarily equate to huge profits. Dell and HP demand rock bottom prices, immediately delivery (or as soon as they ask) and generous terms of payment. Slow payment = cash flow problems.
December 8, 2006 2:20:02 AM

if all of us AMD fanboi's out there donate $1000 to keep AMD afloat, that should total at least 50,000,000,000 which would help the company defeat the evil empire that is intel.




AMD RULZ INTEL DRULZ
December 8, 2006 3:02:48 AM

what the hell r u talking about....AMD survived for 37 years (with less than 10% Market). Now with <20% market and better products what do you expect. simply die???

See K8L will keep AMD alive till 2008.
Bulldozzer which come out by end of 2008 will keep AMD alive till 2011.
Bulldozzer is designed from 2W to 60W segment. Imagin the end products then. Highend bulldozzer will have 16core (each core has capability to run two int threads and one float thread).
Also with ATI graphics engine they can swap any core with graphics core and enter into media processing segment.

Guys if anyone thinks Intel is back on track....yes they are ...but they are not going to derail AMD.
December 8, 2006 3:21:37 AM

Jack,

I just look at the numbers. It is my opinion that ATI has lost the little market share that is has due to the aquistion by AMD. Intel, after the news of the aquisition, cut ATI off. And now have moved that business to Nvidia from what I have read. I just don't think the real issues lie with ATI. People here just seem to rag on ATI now, and make a larger deal of it due to the fact they are owned by AMD. I know that this has caused some issues, but nothing more than short term IMO.

On the other side of the spectrum, so to speak, we have AMD. It seems that for the time being, the momentum that AMD picked up over the past year, will carry them to K8L. Many businesses and consumers have switched to AMD. And, as long as it took them to realize that AMD was as good, and in many cases, a better alternative to the power hog netburst, it will probably take them the better part of 6 months to a year to care or even find out about Core. Now that Dell, and other companies are more agressively advertising AMD based computers, and the fact that AMD is STILL gaining market share in all sectors that I have read about(might be slowing in desktop, not sure), makes me think that it might take a little time to slow the momentum down. All these companies will not just start buying the Core bases systems, when they already have a viable setup, AMD or not.

I just keep looking at the numbers, revenue, market share, and so on. And from the way I have interpreted the data, AMD is still doing fine. ATI has hit a little bump, but that is due in part to the aquistion causing them to lose the business of Intel. As long as AMD has been haning in there, against a much larger company, I don't think they will just lay down and give up just because they lost Intel's business. I would imagine that they would pick up other companies, and other sectors. It is my opinion that ATI offers a better solution than Nvidia as it is, ATI's chipsets are lower power and perform just as well. The onboard gpu might not be quite as well, but, it's onboard, gaming performance shouldn't really be a factor.

Now, if AMD doesn't come out with something quick, they are going to be wearing the shoes Intel wore over the last couple of years. I just don't think they have come this far to flop. Maybe, I just expect to much from them, it just seems they have done a pretty good job in competing against a much larger, financially stable company.

wes

Edit: 4X4, IMO, nothing more than an effort to have something to offer. I don't think they wanted to have Intel with a quad core setup when they had nothing to offer. Was it a good idea to release something with the thermal numbers and cost that performs as it does? Today it seems like a bad idea, and those that buy the first runs of these boards and cpu's probably won't be happy. But, next year this time? It might be a high performance platform. It seems to me that AMD generally releases platforms, and then builds on it. When 939 came out, it performed about the same as 754, then dual core came out, which probably needed dual channel memory, and 939 was great. It might be a case of AMD having no choice, and then making the decision shine later down the road by perfecting it.(not comparing 4X4 to 939, only thing I could come up with)
December 8, 2006 5:57:53 AM

Jack,

I do searches for the info you post. I am not saying you are posting false info, but I would like to know if you go to specific sites to find it. I try different google searches, and just tried mercuries web site. If you have ever checked out the website for the federal reserve, FREDII I think, can't remember. Are there any sites like that for this type of info. Somewhere that the info is put in one place for profits, losses, for the semiconductor industry. Also, how about the market share info, other than just relying on toms, or someone to post the info, I would like to read the info on my own. I just get tired of searching and coming up empty. Thanks for any help.

wes
December 8, 2006 6:10:45 AM

Jack,

Not disputing what you are saying, you have no reason to spread false info as far as I can tell. I am just interested in being able to access info like this for my own personal knowledge. It is nice that you are here, and can pass the information along, but, I am just interested in seeing the format, and the raw data. I guess I will continue to search, it's the internet, someone must be sharing it somewhere!!

wes

You would have to be going to alot of trouble to make everything you say up, and most of the tech sites pretty well report the same information, albeit, a little skewed at times.
December 8, 2006 6:11:43 AM

Quote:
Jack,

I do searches for the info you post. I am not saying you are posting false info, but I would like to know if you go to specific sites to find it. I try different google searches, and just tried mercuries web site. If you have ever checked out the website for the federal reserve, FREDII I think, can't remember. Are there any sites like that for this type of info. Somewhere that the info is put in one place for profits, losses, for the semiconductor industry. Also, how about the market share info, other than just relying on toms, or someone to post the info, I would like to read the info on my own. I just get tired of searching and coming up empty. Thanks for any help.

wes


Wes,

Frankly, take it with a grain of salt --- I have access to Mercury Research reports, and you will not find that online. What I communicate can be found unfortunately it costs $10K to order a copy:
http://www.mercuryresearch.com/orderform.pdf

This is the organization that generates the data that makes the 'we won market share' headlines. I have not tried to find the report in the library as my employer has a stock subscription to a literature service company which includes Mercury Research in their database, so I cannot post it, it would be a massive violation of our licence and a violation of copyright.

Funny thing about Mercury research and this report though, it is 375 pages long filled with tables of data :)  ... each quarter it is updated with that quarter's data and just a few new paragraphs in key sections, the rest remains a copy paste :)  Lazy bums.

So in terms of making those arguments above, feel free to dismiss them as I cannot provide you with the hard (or soft) copy of the document :) 

Jack

Well Jack,

You know, you can always just use the "it is said" validation for your data without actually trying to provide any evidence, explanations or disclaimers to dismiss the info (for lack ability to support it due to legal restrictions). Seems to work for BM.
December 8, 2006 6:20:05 AM

I would love it, I really don't care if it is completely up to date, I would like to see one of the elusive reports with my own eyes. I am just interested in learning a bit.

wes

Edit: just a little update, enlistment is done on May 6, applying to A&M, UT, maybe Rice.... 1.5 years to go, maybe more, thinking of adding EE or ME onto business.
December 8, 2006 6:28:37 AM

Quote:
Jack,

I do searches for the info you post. I am not saying you are posting false info, but I would like to know if you go to specific sites to find it. I try different google searches, and just tried mercuries web site. If you have ever checked out the website for the federal reserve, FREDII I think, can't remember. Are there any sites like that for this type of info. Somewhere that the info is put in one place for profits, losses, for the semiconductor industry. Also, how about the market share info, other than just relying on toms, or someone to post the info, I would like to read the info on my own. I just get tired of searching and coming up empty. Thanks for any help.

wes


Wes,

Frankly, take it with a grain of salt --- I have access to Mercury Research reports, and you will not find that online. What I communicate can be found unfortunately it costs $10K to order a copy:
http://www.mercuryresearch.com/orderform.pdf

This is the organization that generates the data that makes the 'we won market share' headlines. I have not tried to find the report in the library as my employer has a stock subscription to a literature service company which includes Mercury Research in their database, so I cannot post it, it would be a massive violation of our licence and a violation of copyright.

Funny thing about Mercury research and this report though, it is 375 pages long filled with tables of data :)  ... each quarter it is updated with that quarter's data and just a few new paragraphs in key sections, the rest remains a copy paste :)  Lazy bums.

So in terms of making those arguments above, feel free to dismiss them as I cannot provide you with the hard (or soft) copy of the document :) 

Jack

Well Jack,

You know, you can always just use the "it is said" validation for your data without actually trying to provide any evidence, explanations or disclaimers to dismiss the info (for lack ability to support it due to legal restrictions). Seems to work for BM.

:)  :)  Normally I would love to povide links, I am a copy & paste type of guy but in this case I can only communicate what I can from the report and cannot even quote from the article directly because of copyright and license problems. Darn.

Like I said above, the damn report is massive, most of it redundant, but the information it does provide is interesting.

Oh, I know exactly where you're coming from. The are so many quotes, pictures and excerpts I would love to post, but cannot for similar reasons. Que sera sera.

I may have missed it, if so I appologize, but have we revealed the young-uns first name yet?
December 8, 2006 6:43:34 AM

Jack,

Congrats Jack, I wonder if he and Baron's spawn will meet up on some future forum, where, Lil Jack will intellectually thrash him? Just playing.... not trying to start anything. Still in Tx jack?

wes
December 8, 2006 6:45:34 AM

Quote:
Ah unresearched response typical poster here who knows nothing and thinks he knows everything.If you had checked the US government contracts posted on the web , you would know tht the cpu upgrade for Red Storm 13,000 cpu's. was $15 million. That is an ASP of $1100.


Congatulations: You have just proved that AMD earns next to nothing from supercomputers :D 
You can't divide the 15million with the number of CPU's to get price per CPU. Sorry, the world does not work that way, they are not hobby builders. Most of that money goes to IBM for installing all those CPU's.
December 8, 2006 6:46:38 AM

Quote:
His name is Ethan. I have never loved anything more.


Thats great Jack. :D  :D 
Best wishes and a happy and safe holiday season to you and the newly expanded family.
December 8, 2006 7:09:18 AM

Declining sales during transition period is normal for AMD(ATi).

What I really care is whether AMD will copy their conservative business practices to ATi.
December 8, 2006 7:18:32 AM

Well, hopefully AMD lives up to what we have come to love them for, and releases something in the next 12 months that can surprise us like Core 2 did, or atleast beat Core 2. I am interested to see how the K8L parts perform in supercomputers and such. Since the current architecture is already a good design for that use, if you can add in the efficiency of a Core2/K8L cpu, might see amazing results.

wes

Edit: when again is intel moving to IMC and serial connections?
December 8, 2006 7:36:33 AM

Peace Jack,

Have a good night, and I will see you next time.

Thanks for all the info.

wes
December 8, 2006 8:20:18 AM

Quote:
This is a stupid thread.

Both AMD and ATI are a little behind right now. Not to mention AMD perchaced ATI. I think your reading just what you want out of that. AMD did get a big break they were able to get a huge video and chipset department. Course its not like they can buy them and instantly be using its potential.


That about sums it up. AMD is in a rough spot right now. Call it a transitional period if you will. AMD was number two for a very long time, and they did just fine. There is no "tanking" going on here, just an exchange of the performance crown. Most, if not all, companies go through down times when the competition does them one better. It's just business.

Despite Intel's new performance lead, I would still love to upgrade to an AM2 early next year.

Good luck AMD.
!