Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: AMD Q1 results

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by krumme View Post
    (bobcat 50% is just amazing).
    Did you mean this in a good way or a bad way?
    The amazing thing is that there are almost no Bobcats available, yet it accounted for half. Wild. I would love to see the numbers for Q2, before main Llano availability hits and after Bobcat shortages end. 90%?

  2. #12
    It's pretty decent. There are no massive shifts in inventories and the fact that AMD can make money on 2 year old tech bodes well for the 2nd half of the year. 5 million bobcats sold already isn't bad, that number will multiply by at least 3x-4x by the end of the year.

    New graphics cards coming soonish with Nvidia nowhere to be seen again, Llano next month, BD 2 months later...I'd guess AMD is looking forward to one of their best ever years. There's nothing to be worried about, it's not like intel is spending their billions wisely.

  3. #13
    8-bit overflow
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by DCO View Post
    You expected them to increase their marketshare and margins with practically the same products as a year ago?
    Welcome to reality.
    Not really, but I expected them to at least keep MS given the basement pricing they're engaging in. They didn't even follow the market trend.
    He's not dead, he's electroencephalographically challenged.

  4. #14
    8-bit overflow
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by DCO View Post
    You expected them to increase their marketshare and margins with practically the same products as a year ago?
    Welcome to reality.
    well, it really depend on how one see/judge it. I still remember after 1Q-2Q of MC released, AMD server share was still not in good shape, then people claimed it needs more time to show (i did agree), but then after few more quarter still no improvement ... in the CC transcript, it also mention BD to show impact in Q3 and then Q4. So, by that time, the same argument would appear again, should it shows real impact by Q4 or deep into 2012? Or if any bad data (if any) in 2012 before any new product release, continue to blame on being same products?

    btw, back to example quoted, do we have enough time to judge the MC success/failure for AMD server market share yet?

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,228
    One thing is to make conclusions of a product released the same quarter and another thing to expect that after several quarters there is going to be an inflexion point based on magic.

  6. #16
    8-bit overflow
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by DCO View Post
    One thing is to make conclusions of a product released the same quarter and another thing to expect that after several quarters there is going to be an inflexion point based on magic.
    So, has MC passed its inflection points yet? by several quarters, you do mean (server) products from last year to bear fruit this year right?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,228
    I think I've been pretty clear with me first post, except Brazos the products are practically all the same and competition has newer products, for me it's logical to think that the trend with those old products will be the same or worse compared to the last quarters, but people is free to believe what they want.

  8. #18

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by savantu View Post
    Brazos cannibalized AMD's mobile sales in a feroucious manner. For Intel Atom was accretive. Yeah, AMD traded a part sold with $5 profit for $50 price for a $5 part with $30 sales prices. Margins up, revenue down, ASP down. It doesn't look that AMD managed to gain any significant market share in those segments.
    Replacing large expensive stuff selling for 50usd, with 74mm2, 413 pins, on cheap 40nm (aprox 8usd ex packaging as of now), is just plain and simple good business.

    The talk of canniblization is just marketing monopoly bs, that will end soon. It is a thinking that formed Atom, and in general made Intel weak and uncreative.

    For the future Atom is fighting bobcat, llano sb on the b2c and sb bd on the serverfront. That is a hell of a difference than the last years.

  9. #19
    8-bit overflow
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by krumme View Post
    The talk of canniblization is just marketing monopoly bs, that will end soon. It is a thinking that formed Atom, and in general made Intel weak and uncreative.
    What do you mean by "weak and uncreative"?

    I'll bet there are quite a few semiconductor firms who wished they were similarly suffering such a bout of weakness and uncreativeness as demonstrated by Intel's Q1 results.
    Eat my Chicken

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by The Colonel View Post
    What do you mean by "weak and uncreative"?

    I'll bet there are quite a few semiconductor firms who wished they were similarly suffering such a bout of weakness and uncreativeness as demonstrated by Intel's Q1 results.
    The x86 business have been a natural monopoly market for many years. That means its one of the few markets where a single supplier is the most effective solution. It was such a market primarily because of the just extraordinary cost for process development, but it also in a far lesser degree applies to the design or sales force. All those fixed cost will have to be shared among the sold processors. Therefore, there is a tendency for the big player to get bigger and bigger. And its the best for all that it is so, because it lowers total cost more than the positive effect of competition.

    Now Intel is just the big player here, and therefore naturally earns a lot of money. Hiring Otellini was just a brilliant idea. Hiring a macro economics in charge a monopoly, with add on "gangster" competences (read as positive), is just the way to maximise the monopolys opportunities. And so he did deliver in spades. He was just absolutely the right man for the time.

    But he does now, that every profitable market comes to an end (synthezied cores made by everyone and his brother - all fast enough + strong OEM that "carry" the product/brand), and we can see Intel trying to get into new markets (mcaffee, cloud). Until now, not with good results. The strategic purpose is right, but it seems the execution is lacking. The results is not there - yet = the monopoly have a tendency to be weak and uncreative;

    Its difficult to move a big monopoly, and make it innovative in new areas, and at the same time do it with good business results. The organization is tuned for development in a very narrow defined professional field. It affects not only technologic ressources and competences, but also the mindset ("what we do now is the best, we have tried the change before, and it didnt work" = weak).

    Intel ofcourse knows this, and fx. therefore they have separate department competing with each other. They are simply trying to get the market mechanism to work artificially internally for the processor design development, and probably they also have competing teams on production technology(?). The Haifa team seems to be a success example here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux