spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD's regrets (Link)
- Thread starter spectrumbx
- Start date
That's right duby, it's just somebody's opinion.
Let's pretend that is doesn't matter that that somebody is the executive vice president in charge of microprocessor development and strategy and an engineer with 20+ years experience on the subject.
AMD's BIO page.
That's right duby, I don't know how we could expect the EVP for driving the development, strategy and management for microprocessors to be able to speak with authority on the subject of development and strategy for new microprocessor products.
You are, as usual, dismissing an authoritative source because you don't like the message.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
Regardless of opinions, the moral of the story still holds.
Native or not, it is all about what you can deliver.
I will take Intel's Quad gimmick (MCM) any time over AMD's (Quad FX).
Developing a CPU, and marketing are two very different things. I give the guy credit for doing his job... I think he has done a fine job so far. I still think Weber should have stuck around a bit longer... He still had more to contribute in my opinion...
But this guy is still doing a fine job, and I applaud him. But he isnt a marketing expert as clearly shown by his stated opinions.
How is not having a quad core offering for 9 months while Intel does not a product development issue? Which would clearly under falls under Rivas' expertise.
Look at the target audience of the current quad core offerings.... The market share it enjoys is minimal. It may be a marketing threat, but it simply doesnt have the demand needed to adversely affect AMD in any significant way.
I think AMD did the right thing, by taking their time and doing it right.
I think AMD did the right thing, by taking their time and doing it right.
AMD is trying to carve out a share in the server market still, they have been fairly successful with the single and dual core Opterons, anything that puts a stop to that, such as not having a product to compete, is a concern for their continued growth in that high profit market.
I just recently read the assessment of some one who is a lot better informed and more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I, who seems to draw the opposite conclusions from the past ~6 months of sales. What does that tell you about your opinion?
So the problem is that we have an engineer who is sincere instead of a marketing guy who would play the prerecorded message ?
As always , you sound pathetic.
Secondly , you claim QC didn't impact AMD.Guess what , analysts say it impacted Intel's bottom line in Q4 ( that is Cloverton , a CPU launched in November ).Intel has 5x the revenue and the QC impact was felt while on AMD it wouldn't ?
I guess your superior intelect blinds you from seeing the obvious Baghdad Bob.
And like I said, he is allowed to have his opinion... But that doesnt make it any more valid then anyone elses. As a matter of fact I think the article specifically mentions that AMD's biggest problem right now is that they cant keep up with demand... If they cut their yields in half by supported an MCM quad core, that problem would only get worse.
Like I said he is allowed to have his opinion, but I believe AMD has done the right thing.
Could you please stop with the personal attacks?
The question is did it hurt AMD's bottom line? I dont think it did. If Intel gained something from it, then cool... But that is not what this thread is about. The question is did it hurt AMD? I dont think it has enough demand to have a major impact.
If it had an impact on Intel's bottom line how the hell can you say there isn't enough demand ?!
Intel sells at QC at virtually no premium vs. DC , it uses N+1 binning price.Customers want them like hot cakes in this case.Everybody who can choose between 4 cores at 3GHz and 8 at 2.66GHz will pick the later option.
Besides , what you say is , to put it nicely , a stupidity :
He might not me a marketing guy , but hell sure he does know what the market wants.
He also says that AMD is having trouble meeting current demand. Cutting the number of processors they are capable of producing in half would do nothing but make that problem worse, and would impact the bottom line further.
Producing an MCM quad core would hurt worse, than doing what they are currently doing now. Besides, what is it? 1% maybe 2% of the total market demand? It's just not enough to warrant the loss of sales by cutting the number of processors in half.
Producing an MCM quad core would hurt worse, than doing what they are currently doing now. Besides, what is it? 1% maybe 2% of the total market demand? It's just not enough to warrant the loss of sales by cutting the number of processors in half.
This is the fundamental problem with having, it seems, any discussion with you duby, you consistently fail to give credit to authoritative sources that disagree with you. Every time a credible source disagrees with your opinion you dismiss it as 'marketing drive,' just an opinion or similar.
Yes, his opinion is more valid that other's, more valid than yours, more valid that mine. He is an authoritative source speaking on a subject within his expertise. That, by definition, gives his assessment more weight that most anyone else. If you fail to see that, you must return to your English teachers and demand that they better educate you on determining the merits of a source.
No, with a quad core MCM they would still be selling the same number of cores, at lower cost because of the reduced packaging requirements. The only way it would worsen supply is if nobody bought the quad core chips, if no one wanted more than 2 cores in any Opteron computer, a scenario I think fairly unlikely.
Yes, it would reduce the number of dies available for dual core Opterons, it would also reduce the number of people buying dual core Opterons as they would turn to quad core offerings in place of multiple dual core chips.
MCM would not reduce the available product capacity, a monolithic quad core design however, is certain to have some good dies go to waste even if they do repackage failed Barcelona dies as dual core offerings. Given a somewhat fixed number of cores produced, in quad core and beyond offers, MCM is a more flexible and more efficient use of the available cores.
Again, one of the best possible sources you can find disagrees, what does that tell you about your opinion?
I'm not going to try to cover your entire post, becouse you are allowed to have your opinion, but I will cover this...
Which has more demand? Dual Core, or Quad Core? I'd say easily Dual Core... If they designed a Quad core MCM package they would have fewer dies to sell into the Dual Core market. They already have a hard time meeting demand in this market. By creating a Quad Core MCM, AMD would kill itself. It is a bad idea strictly from a financial standpoint.
Anything else is besides the point. His opinion, your opinion, my opinion. That is all I meant.
Which has more demand? Dual Core, or Quad Core? I'd say easily Dual Core... If they designed a Quad core MCM package they would have fewer dies to sell into the Dual Core market. They already have a hard time meeting demand in this market. By creating a Quad Core MCM, AMD would kill itself. It is a bad idea strictly from a financial standpoint.
Anything else is besides the point. His opinion, your opinion, my opinion. That is all I meant.
Then there is no point in having a discussion with you. If you insist on being intellectually dishonest in claiming an authoritative source carries no more weight than your own opinion, there is room for discourse. If you will not concede even the tiny nugget of the obvious: that Mr. Rivas' opinion on this matter is substantively more important than yours or mine, there is no reason to have a discussion because any authoritative source is bound to be met with the same indifference.
Relative demand is meaningless. With MCM designs you need only repackage a small percentage of the total cores produced into MCM packages. Again, MCM does not reduce the number of available dies for sales, it redistributes some of them to a more cost effective package.
A monolithic quad core design will force waste of good dies, reducing the total number of dies available for sale, an MCM package does not have to. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.
I doubt very much his 'opinion,' or my opinion mean much to you.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
By your account, AMD must be making money hand over fist.
How is AMD not able to meet demand when all the retail channels are fully stacked with AMD chips?
Tell me... which CPU you wanted to buy and weren't able to?
Given its size, anything that has a significance for Intel has quadruple the significance for AMD.
Utter BS.
link
Oh la la , how is AMD incapable of meeting demand since even in Q4 06 they experienced inventory build up ? Even with incredible low prices they can't move that inventory.
We're in 2007 Baghdad Bob , not early 06 when this might have been true.
Well , why am I not surprised that you think that selling Semporns for $40 is better than selling QC devices for $500 ?
I ask again , what is your educational background ? Arts , sports ? Economy doesn't seem to be your friend.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
LOL
In case you missed that, duby229, the cost of producing a QC is marginally higher than a lower end CPU, but with exponentially higher profit margin.
In other words, AMD would have to sell several dozen Semprons for the same profit as a single QC.
I like this line tho from the Register link given somewhere above
Sources tell us that the chip is cranking through software at an unreal clip in the labs, beating out AMDs oft-cited 40 per cent performance gain figure.
Yeah, MCM would put AMD on the QC map faster but judging from the performance of 4x4 platform, it's tough to recommend. If QC for K8 on MCM happened, it probalby would've been on the 90nm process (assuming it was released to match Cloverdale launch) and that would be HUGE CPU and higher production costs. Hope that makes sense.
Sources tell us that the chip is cranking through software at an unreal clip in the labs, beating out AMDs oft-cited 40 per cent performance gain figure.
Yeah, MCM would put AMD on the QC map faster but judging from the performance of 4x4 platform, it's tough to recommend. If QC for K8 on MCM happened, it probalby would've been on the 90nm process (assuming it was released to match Cloverdale launch) and that would be HUGE CPU and higher production costs. Hope that makes sense.
It would seem to me that if the demand for quad core was so small, that developing one would have a minimal effect on AMD's dual core availability.
And they are... They are making more money now then they ever have.. The problem is they just bought ATi, and they are spending a ton of money to build and upgrade their fabs
Besides retail channels only account for a small portion of the market, and is not a big concern,... The problem is meeting the demands of the OEM market, which was clearly stated in the ops post....
If you can name one Dual Core Sempron, then be my guest.... That is not what we are discussing... Instead we are talking about Dual Core Opterons, and Athlon X2s... These are the high margin parts that would be affected by reducing the number of them available for sale to the OEM market, which cant be met right now anyhow.... How would reducing these parts be of any good to the company?
You can continue to spew incorrect, and misleading crap all you want... But I will ask one more time to stop the personal attacks.....
Incorrect, Misleading crap...
So that makes your information 100% correct...
Oh how I love the fights between Intel fan-boys and AMDrones
(psst, show me some information that AMD can't hit the demand for x2's and opty's... because it definatly isn't the supply crunch Intel had at the release of Conroe when you couldn't find a e6600 to save your life)
So that makes your information 100% correct...
Oh how I love the fights between Intel fan-boys and AMDrones
(psst, show me some information that AMD can't hit the demand for x2's and opty's... because it definatly isn't the supply crunch Intel had at the release of Conroe when you couldn't find a e6600 to save your life)
How could it be correct or incorrect? Mine is an opinion...
Heres your link.... http://www.crn.com/white-box/193501700 This was the first link in a simple google search
How can his be incorrect, its just an opinion after-all?
How is this an opinion?
Sounds like he is trying to pass this lie off as fact....
And as the ops link clearly states this is an OEM shortage.... The retail market is only a small percentage of the total
And this article clearly states an inventory buildup...
Who to believe...
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20070112VL200.html
Who to believe...
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20070112VL200.html
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Duby, I understand you are obligated to defend AMD to the death, but to deny that AMD has an inventory buildup is foolish. It was highly rumored during the 3Q06 that they would, and I trust a reputable name like Digitimes a lot more than I'll trust "Channel Web." Everyone knows AMD has a shortage building, what did you do: scrounge up one (incorrect) article that says they don't and are trying to pass it as a fact? Please.
No it was the very first link in a simple google search... Fine I'll find another... be back in about 30 seconds so I can pull the second link from the same google search....
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/31/06OPcurve_1.html
And the third link from this same google search....
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/intel-profit-drops-39-price/story.aspx?guid=%7BF022C863-1C0B-4F8B-B0C5-1695AFFC6810%7D&dist=morenews
As always duby you're clueless and present outdated information.
Your link states why AMD can't supplyu the channel , not because insuficient production but because they ( Ruiz said that too ) due to contract obligations with Dell and HP they were forced to allocate a certain number of parts to these 2 OEMs.
Both failed to reach their sales targets and as a result they dumped back on AMD a huge number of chips which AMD dumped in the channel in late november/early december causing inventory buildup there.
AMD isn't booked , instead they produce more chips than they need , as a result they see rising inventory levels which they counter with drastic price cuts which brings us back to my previous post.
*See JackPack's quote.