Is AMD About to Turn a Corner?

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 1:20 PM, cableguy815 wrote:

  I understand you are an analyst and have some understanding of the market, but you clearly have no clue when it comes to tech related metrics. AMD has no answer to the Atom? I'm sorry sir but although the Neo maybe a larger, more expensive, and more power hungry hog, it wipes the floor with the Atom. Combine that with AMD's superior graphics platform (I'm sorry but Intel's graphics prowess is just pathetic) and you have a "netbook" killer. Despite what you and many other analysts may believe about netbooks based on the Atom, they are really not all they are hyped to be. Read some reviews and see what people say about the performance issues of these things. Granted though, you get what you pay for and the Neo platforms are usually more expensive.

  Secondly is your point about the Nehalem based processors. Yes, I cannot deny they are much better than AMD's top notch processors. Intel has truly outdone themselves here (kudos to Intel). However, what you fail to note is the value of the processor and the platform overall. The cheapest Nehalem based processor costs some 150% of what top Phenom IIs offer. Furthermore, the platform (motherboard, memory, etc) are also more expensive. Rest assured though that the performance benefit is not 50% better, it is nowhere near that. Most analysts are so stuck at looking at the trees they don't see the forest; you sir, are no different.

  Lastly, if you want to talk strengths and stock value, why not mention AMD’s humongous success in the video segment? As a techie (who also happens to work in the finance industry) I can tell you that AMD is kind of giving Nvidia the beating of its lifetime right now, with more painful blows in the near future (but that part is just speculation as the next generation video hardware isn't confirmed yet).

  This is a nice article but very one-sided and very incomplete. Perhaps doing a bit more research and reading more reviews would help you produce more thorough periodicals.

  Yours truly,

  Cableguy.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 1:39 PM, TEBuddy wrote:

  This performance difference between this and that is so immaterial to so many people. You have benchmarks for this and that, and when I open a program I tell you what, the Intel stuff I have doesnt do it any faster than the AMD stuff I have. These benchmarks are so overrated. The AMD processors I have used have been more reliable and run Windows better than Intel cpus, perhaps because of their high speed bus. And now Intel has gone and copied AMD's architecture in order to get the same and better performance.

  AMD is the only end to end high end supplier, better chipsets, better graphics, and more than capable processors. AMD has the best engineers, other companies steel their talent. And they compete on a smaller budget. Intel has used brute force of shrinking its technology to make it better, but AMD has designed it better.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 6:09 PM, TMFNomad wrote:

  Cableguy,

  Like you said, the Neo, while delivering superior performance relative to the Atom, is more expensive and consumes too much power. You and I might find netbooks to be underpowered, but consumers have given them a stamp of approval, as shown by the market's growth. IDC sees netbook shipments hitting 26 million this year, and most of them are going to involve Atom processors.

  Regarding Nehalem, Intel did release its first desktop parts into the high-end, but the price difference isn't as big as you suggest. The cheapest Nehalem, the 2.66 GHz part mentioned in the article, goes for $284, compared with $245 for the Phenom II part mentioned.

  More importantly, the release of the Core i5/Lynnfield next month will begin moving Nehalem into the mainstream, thanks to both lower CPU prices and cheaper motherboards. The Core i5 750, which is due out next month, is expected to retail for $199 while delivering performance that's comparable with the $245 Phenom II chip. AMD will probably be forced to slash Phenom II prices in response, and thereby damage its margins.

  You're right that AMD's doing well in the graphics market. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Nvidia's getting the beating of its lifetime, but Jon Peddie did have AMD gaining a bit of share in Q2. But with the computing division accounting for 77% of revenues last quarter, any margin strength in graphics won't be enough to offset margin weakness in computing.

  I know the Intel/AMD debate can get pretty impassioned, but trust me when I say that I don't have an axe to grind here. I've been positive on AMD before, especially around the time that the Athlon 64 and Opteron went mainstream. Right now, though, I think the combination of Nehalem and Atom, along with the continued strength of Core 2 Duo, is putting them in a tough spot.

  Eric

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 9:30 PM, asH95 wrote:

  I agree with all of the above posters, and add- if you (the writer) really understood the tech market or benchmarks then you would know that most software is Intel optimized. Because of Intel's vendor influential dominance, Intel has the advantage of incorporating its SSE4.1/2 extensions without having to share or allow AMD to incorporating them in these current CPU's. In case you have'nt noticed, Intel is 50X's AMD's market cap; Intel is suppose to win! This is the perfect David vs Goliath scenario...and Goliath cheats too.

  the writer, as most folk, drink form Intel's cup (imagination needed).

  asH

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 10:59 PM, TEBuddy wrote:

  What is retarded, is that AMD started the netbook market, but Intel has the marketing strategy to sell it all over the world. AMD's Geode was always for this purpose and obviously we know how Intel parted ways with the XO laptop to compete with the non-profit orgranization.

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 9:31 AM, cableguy815 wrote:

  Eric,

  The netbook argument can go back and forth, as both your points and mine are valid. I guess in the end it is just a matter of preference. This newly coined term that we have come to know as netbooks is simply a simplified and miniaturized laptop designed to enhance mobility. You are correct, there are many consumers that haven in fact endorsed them. Similarly, there are many that have purchased them and regret the decision because running something as common as a youtube video can be a very unpleasant experience, simply because the platform is so weak. I for one would choose more horsepower at the cost of a slightly higher price and power consumption. But this of course is just my preference.

  On the i7/Phenom II point, why are you using the Phenom II 965 as an example? The 955 is the exact same processor and costs $50 less. I nor any sane & informed consumer cannot justify spending $50 for an extra .2GHZ. That is what overclocking is for. Also, on the price point, don't forget the boards and memory. The Intel plat form will cost an additional Franklin on average (at least).

  All in all, I do agree with you on the i5. When these guys come out AMD will be in for some pain and they will slash prices; but it will not be by as much as most people anticipate. Preliminary reports indicate that the i5s are not different in performance from the i7s. If this is so, the 955, and 965 will hold their own as they can stand their ground against the i7 920. In the mean time, let's just wait and see how this story turns out. Thanks for your reply, I enjoyed this.

  Cableguy

• Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 8:20 AM, asH95 wrote:

  Preliminary reports indicate that the i5s are not different in performance from the i7s (previous poster)

  That statement is contradictory. The i7's include HT a much costlier technology and uses 4 threads appearing as 8, while the i5's will not include HT, while threads are downed to 2 appearing as 4, I believe the cache is either the same or larger, anyway your statement if true is not logical on many levels, including profit

Add your comment.