Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD issue revenue warnings: -

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 5, 2007 12:46:08 PM

Quote:
Intel Warns

tp://news.com.com/Intel+issues+revenue+warning/2100-1014_3-6045582.html?tag=nefd.top

AMD Warns

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2004/10/05/amd_q3_upda...

~~~~~~~~~~

I'll leave the spin to to others :) 


aint nobody clean in the CPU prive war.... Both AMD and INTEL both warning shows proof
March 5, 2007 1:16:04 PM

Quote:
Intel Warns

tp://news.com.com/Intel+issues+revenue+warning/2100-1014_3-6045582.html?tag=nefd.top

AMD Warns

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2004/10/05/amd_q3_upda...

~~~~~~~~~~

I'll leave the spin to to others :) 



And yet people tell me the price war is good for someone. I have yet to figure out who. The next time I say NO MORE PRICE WAR MAYBE YOU'LL ALL SUPPORT IT.
Related resources
March 5, 2007 1:19:36 PM

I don't see any revenue warning from Intel, only from AMD. :roll:
March 5, 2007 1:20:17 PM

The Intel link does not work for me and the AMD link is from 2004, WTF?
March 5, 2007 1:47:18 PM

I may give you a clue: CONSUMERS!!!! :wink:
March 5, 2007 1:48:19 PM

This guy is living the past universe, for the world of tomorrow ;) 
March 5, 2007 1:50:19 PM

As others have mentioned, those are old (and unrelated) links.

What's funny is that Baron, without even looking at the information, immediately got on his soapbox to use "news" to prove his point. For SHAME!

I believe the expression is... QFT

Quote:
And yet people tell me the price war is good for someone. I have yet to figure out who. The next time I say NO MORE PRICE WAR MAYBE YOU'LL ALL SUPPORT IT.


I think the real link the OP was looking for was this...

Real AMD warning...not intel though
March 5, 2007 1:52:16 PM

Quote:
As others have mentioned, those are old (and unrelated) links.

What's funny is that Baron, without even looking at the information, immediately got on his soapbox to use "news" to prove his point. For SHAME!

I believe the expression is... QFT

And yet people tell me the price war is good for someone. I have yet to figure out who. The next time I say NO MORE PRICE WAR MAYBE YOU'LL ALL SUPPORT IT.


Haha yeah I was about to comment on that. It's unbelievable that the first two posters would quote something without even looking at it. I mean, for God's sake, the link starts with "tp://"!
March 5, 2007 1:59:37 PM

My goodness, analysts expect AMD to lose 25 cents per share for Q1. At ~550 million shares, that's a minimum of 137 million dollar loss. Explain that one away with ATI acquisition costs.

Of course, this was to be expected. Q2 probably isn't too rosey either.
March 5, 2007 2:07:14 PM

I heard Intel released the Core 2 duo.
March 5, 2007 2:15:37 PM

Quote:
I heard Intel released the Core 2 duo.


Bullshit, and even if they did AMD would still make much better chips. AMD is always going to be better than intel because theyre just a better company, thats how it is. It's like why the sky is blue. Noone really knows why the sky is blue, it just is. Just like how AMD is better than intel. Also, intel sucks because it uses competitive market strategies. And they support child labour n stuff.

:roll:
March 5, 2007 2:22:24 PM

Quote:
I may give you a clue: CONSUMERS!!!! :wink:


I knew I should just not care, but plenty of consumers work in suport of these two companies and they are taking it on the chin. I'm sure this crazed price war had a small hand in the Nikkei "problem." Imagine how much money was lost with the increasing price drops. Earnings would have to be slashed across the board for everyone involved.

Never mind.
March 5, 2007 2:25:29 PM

Quote:


What's funny is that Baron, without even looking at the information, immediately got on his soapbox to use "news" to prove his point. For SHAME!

I believe the expression is... QFT


Why are you surprised at this? :lol: 
March 5, 2007 2:29:02 PM

Quote:

I'm sure this crazed price war had a small hand in the Nikkei "problem."


If I had space in my sig this gem would be inserted :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
March 5, 2007 2:52:20 PM

Quote:
As others have mentioned, those are old (and unrelated) links.

What's funny is that Baron, without even looking at the information, immediately got on his soapbox to use "news" to prove his point. For SHAME!

I believe the expression is... QFT

And yet people tell me the price war is good for someone. I have yet to figure out who. The next time I say NO MORE PRICE WAR MAYBE YOU'LL ALL SUPPORT IT.


I think the real link the OP was looking for was this...

Real AMD warning...not intel though


Do you really think Intel will have YoY growth? They have lost market share and totally disintegrated the bottom of their pricing structure.

The interesting thing will be the Mercury numbers for the Q.

BTW, I went to both links and did indeed find out that there was no page attached to the Intel link. It doesn't change the fact that LOTS of peole are suffering because of this price war and AMD is not going to be the "first to blink" as they said.

Intel always reports later than AMD anyway.
March 5, 2007 2:58:27 PM

Quote:
I'm sure this crazed price war


This "crazed price war" seems very one sided to me. C2Ds came out in July and over 7 months later we still have yet to see the first price cut on them. In fact we won't see a price cut on them until April 9 months after their introduction. Highly unusual in the semiconductor business where 9 months is something like forever. Of course, we've seen cut after cut in AMD's prices, but to date that's been a product of lack of competitiveness not any mythical "price war".

"Price war" is just AMD spin for Intel not rolling over and surrendering market share like it did in the Presscrap days. AMD seems to have been under the impression that those days would last forever, thus no need to worry about thinks like "cash" or the condidtion of it's "balance sheet". Those things are just inventions of the Intelidiots!
March 5, 2007 3:34:55 PM

hmm,Intel is showing a slight growth right now...thats means a slight profit...seems like the price war aint hurting them that bad...
March 5, 2007 3:39:31 PM

Hey OP, can you change the name of this thread? AMD has released an actual Q1 2007 warning and Intel has not. Your topic title is misleading to put it mildly.

Thanks!
March 5, 2007 3:44:41 PM

Quote:
I'm sure this crazed price war


This "crazed price war" seems very one sided to me. C2Ds came out in July and over 7 months later we still have yet to see the first price cut on them. In fact we won't see a price cut on them until April 9 months after their introduction. Highly unusual in the semiconductor business where 9 months is something like forever. Of course, we've seen cut after cut in AMD's prices, but to date that's been a product of lack of competitiveness not any mythical "price war".

"Price war" is just AMD spin for Intel not rolling over and surrendering market share like it did in the Presscrap days. AMD seems to have been under the impression that those days would last forever, thus no need to worry about thinks like "cash" or the condidtion of it's "balance sheet". Those things are just inventions of the Intelidiots!


Intel started the price war by pricing the E6300 at $183. It stomps every other Intel chip including ones that curently cost up to $1000 (965EE). That has NEVER happened before. Usually the new chips slot into the price of the old chips and the old chips drop in price.

This put pressure on AMD because of course enthusiasts won't say to drop the prices of other Intel chip families like Prescott, Presler, etc.

So AMD did what you all wanted and even managed to get a couple of share points. Now we get these warnings and earnings drops. Intel will be next. I figure they'll be in the double digits again for profits ( lost profits that is).
March 5, 2007 3:49:01 PM

Intel is not hurting. They are fine. AMD may be hurting now, but they will be resurrect themselves once R600 and Barcelona finally release! They have been in much worse shape than this before and been fine...IMO! Take it for what its worth.

Best,

3Ball
March 5, 2007 3:53:43 PM

Intel GPM for 2006 - 51%
AMD GPM for 2006 - 42%

Intel GPM for Q4 2006 - 49%
AMD GPM for 2006 - 36%

The price war definitely seems to be affecting one company more than the other.
March 5, 2007 4:01:31 PM

Quote:
Intel GPM for 2006 - 51%
AMD GPM for 2006 - 42%

Intel GPM for Q4 2006 - 49%
AMD GPM for 2006 - 36%

The price war definitely seems to be affecting one company more than the other.



Intel is maintaining certain numbers by artificially inflating NetBurst and Merom prices.

Last year Intel profits were down 39% YoY. All of their indicators were YoY negative. They are hurting just as much. They just have more cash to play with.
March 5, 2007 4:13:50 PM

Quote:
Intel is maintaining certain numbers by artificially inflating NetBurst and Merom prices.



Baron, Link please, we need to see evidence of this "artificial" price inflation or we must disregard your comment.
March 5, 2007 4:31:18 PM

In general, price wars are bad...

However, if Intel is capturing a large chunk of AMD share... at a profit... then it may more than make up for the average profit margin per CPU sold going down.

Many of Intel's costs are sunk... so pushing larger volume of CPUs will translate into more profits to the bottom line.

Investors are not going to care about a few percentage points of gross margin... if sales and profits rise significantly overall.
March 5, 2007 4:36:54 PM

Quote:
Intel GPM for 2006 - 51%
AMD GPM for 2006 - 42%

Intel GPM for Q4 2006 - 49%
AMD GPM for 2006 - 36%

The price war definitely seems to be affecting one company more than the other.



Intel is maintaining certain numbers by artificially inflating NetBurst and Merom prices.

Last year Intel profits were down 39% YoY. All of their indicators were YoY negative. They are hurting just as much. They just have more cash to play with.

Intel may be "artificially" inflating prices on Meroms and high-end Conroes, but that's because of its product position, just like AMD used to "overcharge" for K8s. Those GPM numbers are real, and they paint the story of a much more wounded AMD. Wouldn't you say that right now, nearly the entire AMD processor line is in a price war? The same isn't true for Intel, who holds the premium segment of both desktop and mobile sectors and has the only quad-core single-package solution so far.

If AMD and Intel lose the same amount of money, AMD would get hurt more and start to blink first. That's because of diminishing returns on the utility of wealth, which Intel has a lot more of. Right now you see AMD planning to issue more shares while they're at a 52-week low - that is painful! Yet their losses are usually a drop in the bucket for Intel.

A proper comparison of financial figures must take into account the relative sizes of the companies. A 1% drop in gross or profit margins for both companies would hurt them in equal proportions, but the quantitative loss Intel would report would be much higher.
March 5, 2007 5:22:06 PM



All you've provided are a bunch of Newegg links. Firstly, those are Newegg prices, not necessarily in proportion to current tray prices from Intel as this may be old stock or Newegg's quicker reaction to changing supply/demand.

Secondly, to have inflated prices impact GPM, those products actually have to sell. So for whatever reason, "overpriced" CPUs are selling and boosting Intel's margins. May I point out that rather than being overpriced, many of the products you have quoted are mobile or server processors, which both command a premium over mainstream desktop parts? Additionally, the Core generation both is a recent brand and goes against the "megahertz myth," which either isn't fully dispelled or still has significant weight in the back of consumers' minds. Thus I'm not at all surprised that Intel charges less for equivalent Core performance than it does for the Pentium brand.

This argument over what Intel charges, though, does nothing to deflect the reported margins. If they're higher than the competition's, then whatever prices Intel is charging, it's doing a better job making money off its products than the competitor is off theirs.
March 5, 2007 5:22:24 PM

Baron,you mis the point here it seems..if they are selling those chips at those prices, and people are buying them, then can you blame them? No product will be sold for more then the market is willing to pay for it. Yall are also missing a key point here...Intel has cut storage fees for all those netburst chips they have been selling...they are cutting costs, and yes they are cutting profits to do it...but as long as they continue to cut cost, raise yeilds, and maintain a steady profit...the board wont care
March 5, 2007 5:30:23 PM

Quote:
Baron,you mis the point here it seems..if they are selling those chips at those prices, and people are buying them, then can you blame them? No product will be sold for more then the market is willing to pay for it. Yall are also missing a key point here...Intel has cut storage fees for all those netburst chips they have been selling...they are cutting costs, and yes they are cutting profits to do it...but as long as they continue to cut cost, raise yeilds, and maintain a steady profit...the board wont care



Just continue to promote them ripping people off. No preCore2 chip should cost more than any Core 2 chip.

As all of you are fond of saying, most people don't know what they're buying anyway. Why don't you go on a tour to explain to people that they REALLY SHOULDN'T BUY NetBurst if they aren't suposed to buy X2.
March 5, 2007 5:31:15 PM



All you've provided are a bunch of Newegg links. Firstly, those are Newegg prices, not necessarily in proportion to current tray prices from Intel as this may be old stock or Newegg's quicker reaction to changing supply/demand.

Secondly, to have inflated prices impact GPM, those products actually have to sell. So for whatever reason, "overpriced" CPUs are selling and boosting Intel's margins. May I point out that rather than being overpriced, many of the products you have quoted are mobile or server processors, which both command a premium over mainstream desktop parts? Additionally, the Core generation both is a recent brand and goes against the "megahertz myth," which either isn't fully dispelled or still has significant weight in the back of consumers' minds. Thus I'm not at all surprised that Intel charges less for equivalent Core performance than it does for the Pentium brand.

This argument over what Intel charges, though, does nothing to deflect the reported margins. If they're higher than the competition's, then whatever prices Intel is charging, it's doing a better job making money off its products than the competitor is off theirs.

Excuses, excuses. Those prices are a RIPOFF.
March 5, 2007 5:34:17 PM

why would i do that? Im no humanatarian? I firmly beleive that if people do stupid things, its their fault..point in case...my first suv i bought when i came to the us, was a ford explorer...I didnt research, I didnt look around, i liked it, and i bought it...it wound up falling under a "lemon" law. If I buy something that cost more then the cash i have in my pocket, IE, i have to use my debit or credit card to pay for it, I research it, and I only pay for it, when I know its worth it...if other people spend that much and dont even know what they are buying, they only have themselves to blame. If it was AMD doing this, then I doubt you would be screaming about rippoffs so loudly
March 5, 2007 5:40:36 PM

Quote:
why would i do that? Im no humanatarian? I firmly beleive that if people do stupid things, its their fault..point in case...my first suv i bought when i came to the us, was a ford explorer...I didnt research, I didnt look around, i liked it, and i bought it...it wound up falling under a "lemon" law. If I buy something that cost more then the cash i have in my pocket, IE, i have to use my debit or credit card to pay for it, I research it, and I only pay for it, when I know its worth it...if other people spend that much and dont even know what they are buying, they only have themselves to blame. If it was AMD doing this, then I doubt you would be screaming about rippoffs so loudly



You're wrong. I only like AMD because they sem to be the "nicer, more partner-friendly" company. I would have stopped supporting AMD if they had not been clear that they are not trying to compete with nVidia after the acquisition.

Opening their platform and sockets was necessary to keep people like me around. I'd bet AMD gets more "press" from here than all of their news outlets.

All Hail The Duopoly!!
March 5, 2007 5:41:36 PM

Having cash makes no difference on money you make in a quarter. Last I checked, Intel still made 1.5 billion dollars last quarter in pure profit (that's including one time charges...to do apples to apples, that's postive 1,500 million Intel vs negative 500 million AMD). Analysts weren't delighted with Intel, because they're still living in the 90s fantasy world of crazy margins and new computers every 6 months. The microprocessor industry is becoming more of a commodity market and will start to reduce in profitability regardless of price wars.

As far as inflating Netburst and Merom prices - people are still buying these products, so Intel must be doing something right with pricing. The price of a product is always linked to what people are willing to pay for it - if people want to pay lots of money for an older, inferior technology, they will do it and that's their choice. The information exists for them to make an informed decision - they just don't care that much.
March 5, 2007 5:54:03 PM

Quote:
Having cash makes no difference on money you make in a quarter. Last I checked, Intel still made 1.5 billion dollars last quarter in pure profit (that's including one time charges...to do apples to apples, that's postive 1,500 million Intel vs negative 500 million AMD). Analysts weren't delighted with Intel, because they're still living in the 90s fantasy world of crazy margins and new computers every 6 months. The microprocessor industry is becoming more of a commodity market and will start to reduce in profitability regardless of price wars.

As far as inflating Netburst and Merom prices - people are still buying these products, so Intel must be doing something right with pricing. The price of a product is always linked to what people are willing to pay for it - if people want to pay lots of money for an older, inferior technology, they will do it and that's their choice. The information exists for them to make an informed decision - they just don't care that much.


Intel is cerainly doing their job to make CPUs a commodity market, BUT THEY AREN'T. They basically run MOST OF THE WORLD. Gold just sits there and looks pretty.

Why don't you say this in regards to X2 when I say people should feel good about buying them? They are still just as good with power and are still EXCELLENT gamer's CPUs.

BTW, the SPEC numbers for K10 are starting to trickle out like I said they would this month. We should get a full suite by April. I'm still a little concerned about the new chipset for servers(nForce Pro 3600 is not HT3).

I find it funy that two people on totally different sides of the issue (Rahul Sood and Me) think the same thing about the price war and commoditizing CPUs. I won't say great minds think alike, though. :oops: 

I make not a penny off any CPUs, he sells systems for up to $10,000.

Intel made profits that were up to 55% less YoY in Q406. I expect the same in Q107. You can't make more money on much lower prices. I would say that the most sold Intel chip right now is between E4300 and E6300. That means their volume parts are priced LESS than $200. That was not the case last year - Q106.
The growth of the market will not offset these fire sale prices. And once NetBurst is gone they will have just the Core/Core 2 parts which are going for a song with more drops to happen soon.

The bleeding continues.
March 5, 2007 6:39:49 PM

you can make more,by saleing for less, if you increase sales by a large margin. Intel has lowered sales to companies like dell and hp, they pay les then we do for cpus, and increased them to the end user, people like us and little computer shops, who pay more for chips, and they are selling more chips now,then they were before the core2s where released...and they are also clearing out the warehouses full of netburst chips. All this means, lower upkep cost, lower per peice profit, but greater profit becouse greater bulk sold.
March 5, 2007 6:54:45 PM

Quote:
you can make more,by saleing for less, if you increase sales by a large margin. Intel has lowered sales to companies like dell and hp, they pay les then we do for cpus, and increased them to the end user, people like us and little computer shops, who pay more for chips, and they are selling more chips now,then they were before the core2s where released...and they are also clearing out the warehouses full of netburst chips. All this means, lower upkep cost, lower per peice profit, but greater profit becouse greater bulk sold.



The market grows at about 9-12% per year. That means since Intel is not gaining share they can only get 9-12% more sales. If they are not dropping prices less than 9-12% it won't help.

CPUs are sold in lots of 1000 and Newegg can definitely buy (AND SELL) several million per year so that theory is out. If Intel charges X for a CPU then ANYONE has to sell it for X + "comfortable, fair markup."

That's the base determinant in retail prices.
March 5, 2007 7:09:34 PM

exactly!you se my point! Intel is selling les cpus to dell and hp, who pay less for each, and more to the small retailers who pay more! they arent loseing any shares, just above breaking even, but they are makeing more becouse the per/price they sell them at is going up, becouse les are being sold at discounts to dell, and more in bulk to places like newegg
March 5, 2007 7:16:56 PM

Quote:
Intel Warns

tp://news.com.com/Intel+issues+revenue+warning/2100-1014_3-6045582.html?tag=nefd.top

AMD Warns

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2004/10/05/amd_q3_upda...

~~~~~~~~~~

I'll leave the spin to to others :) 


aint nobody clean in the CPU prive war.... Both AMD and INTEL both warning shows proof

Proof of what?
If microsoft cut the price of all their products in half would you be complaning? They're still making profit. Don't cry for AMD.
March 5, 2007 7:25:39 PM

Quote:
I'm sure this crazed price war


This "crazed price war" seems very one sided to me. C2Ds came out in July and over 7 months later we still have yet to see the first price cut on them. In fact we won't see a price cut on them until April 9 months after their introduction. Highly unusual in the semiconductor business where 9 months is something like forever. Of course, we've seen cut after cut in AMD's prices, but to date that's been a product of lack of competitiveness not any mythical "price war".

"Price war" is just AMD spin for Intel not rolling over and surrendering market share like it did in the Presscrap days. AMD seems to have been under the impression that those days would last forever, thus no need to worry about thinks like "cash" or the condidtion of it's "balance sheet". Those things are just inventions of the Intelidiots!


Intel started the price war by pricing the E6300 at $183. It stomps every other Intel chip including ones that curently cost up to $1000 (965EE). That has NEVER happened before. Usually the new chips slot into the price of the old chips and the old chips drop in price.

This put pressure on AMD because of course enthusiasts won't say to drop the prices of other Intel chip families like Prescott, Presler, etc.

So AMD did what you all wanted and even managed to get a couple of share points. Now we get these warnings and earnings drops. Intel will be next. I figure they'll be in the double digits again for profits ( lost profits that is).

Sigh, so basically Intel should make all their c2d's range from $1000 to $2000 simply because thats what the price of a EE 965 was? Just because a 965 cost that much it doesn't mean it was priced fairly.

Supply and demand Baron. Whats the point of being the #1 chip maker if all you do is make millions of chips and pile them into a stock room because no one will buy them.
March 5, 2007 7:29:02 PM

Quote:
Excuses, excuses. Those prices are a RIPOFF.


Well don't buy one then!!!

wait.....do i hear something, is that the sound of a 4x4 system. THATS NOT A RIP OFF IS IT BARON?!!
March 5, 2007 7:30:49 PM

Intel hasnt released a warning on diminished revenues...that link was from 05 or some such...they seem right on track to makeing their goal
March 5, 2007 7:36:18 PM

Quote:
Intel hasnt released a warning on diminished revenues...that link was from 05 or some such...they seem right on track to makeing their goal


Yeah thats irrelevant to baron's argument anyway. He's been moaning for ages that they are "destroying the market" or some stupid crap.
The CPU market should rip the consumer off and everyone should buy preslers and 4x4 systems because they will be saving the industry...
March 5, 2007 7:38:23 PM

hmmm...yeah i gathered that he is upset that cpus are becoming commodities...it was bound to happen...now it has..if AMD wishes to surive they most expand into other markets...its simple realy, and its the way the free market works...remeber when basic cellphones where 800 bucks? now you get camera,phone,mp3 for 150. Every high priced item becomes a commodity
March 5, 2007 7:48:45 PM

Quote:
Intel Warns

tp://news.com.com/Intel+issues+revenue+warning/2100-1014_3-6045582.html?tag=nefd.top

AMD Warns

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2004/10/05/amd_q3_upda...

~~~~~~~~~~

I'll leave the spin to to others :) 


aint nobody clean in the CPU prive war.... Both AMD and INTEL both warning shows proof

Proof of what?
If microsoft cut the price of all their products in half would you be complaning? They're still making profit. Don't cry for AMD.


Screw AMD. Plenty of others will go down in flames a LONG time before AMD does. The supplier NEVER goes out of business first. I'm talking about the general PC market. Margins were razor thin enough before this "war." Now they're downright nano-thin.

MS has no competition so they would not be in a price war if they lowered prices. That would actually help Dell since they could then take the savings and "apply" it to the margins.

I was proving that Intel is artificially inflating prices. NetBurst is worth $.10 next to even E4300. I just find it funny that you are not screaming at teh top of your lungs about all the people who are not even getting X2 levels of performance while at the same time hollaring AMD has to lower prices to compete.

With friends like you Intel doesn't need enemies. It's no wonder Sharikou thnks they may have some problems (no I don't agree exactly) in 08.


Excuses, excuses. Are you all Intel employees trying to get the bosses to lose enough profit to have to lay you off?
!