Not having the "Performance Crown" hurting Intel?

[Dave Baumann]

Evidently not:

Intel Revenue Release[/url]]Intel Announces Record Quarterly and Annual Revenue; Fourth-Quarter Earnings Per Share 33 Cents

Intel Corporation today announced record quarterly revenue of $9.6 billion, up 13 percent from the third quarter and up 10 percent year-over-year. For the year, Intel achieved revenue of $34.2 billion, up 13.5 percent from 2003 and higher than the previous record of $33.7 billion set in 2000.

Fourth-quarter net income was $2.1 billion, up 11 percent sequentially and down 2 percent year-over-year. Earnings per share were 33 cents, up 10 percent sequentially and flat with the fourth quarter of 2003. Results for the third quarter of 2004 included tax-related items that increased earnings by approximately 3 cents per share.

"We ended 2004 with record revenues and robust demand for Intel architecture products across all geographies and channels," said Intel CEO Craig R. Barrett. "Our investments in manufacturing capacity, innovative new products and global presence have allowed us to post double-digit gains in both revenue and profits two years in a row. In 2005, we look forward to continued growth as we ramp our 65nm process technology and introduce our first dual-core microprocessors across a range of new platforms."

 

[Druga Runda]

and AMD will barely post a profit... well the force is strong with Intel.

But I would say that it will only be 2005 where AMD will properly realise the advantage if they still manage to stay on top... a bit of inertion will be there and more open mindednes in the server sector, plus the desktop sector will be on 90 nm, which will give better margins, if they start making inroads in notebook sector... plus the difficulties that they are having in the channel, like the recent "bad chips" etc... are surely not doing them any favours...

mah AMD has to be on top for at least 5 years straight to get proper profitable stronghold in this whole business... Intel is steamrolling them even when they are weaker - the power of marchitechture...

 

[ANova]

Or maybe it's just....no, I won't get into that again.

 

[T2k]

Or maybe it's just....no, I won't get into that again.

LOL

 

[Acert93]

It is bad timing for AMD in many ways.

Up until this last year or so Intel has been pushing on "Speed Speed Speed". One of the reasons for choosing the P4 Netburst was because it ramped up so well in the MHz area--which was great marketing. Intel was also able to stay one step ahead in the performance area, keeping their brand name a premium (heh, the GPUs work in a very similar manner), that premium then trickled down the entire product line. It never hurts that Intel's Motherboard chipsets and features have always been pretty decent from a feature and performance standpoint.

Then something changed, or at least became more and more evident over the last 2 years.

Processing power is not as relevant for most users at this point. Even for gamers, the advent of the GPU and how almost all games, and more importantly all graphically intense games, require and rely on the GPU. People with 2Ghz systems can do most tasks and play most games as well as people with 3.2GHz or faster systems.

So AMD takes the speed crown just as (a) chip development starts hitting walls (look at how slow the last 2 years have been for speed bumps) and (b) speed is just not as relevant for most users--they have more than enough speed to word process, surf the net, email, watch movies, and so forth.

In reading some quotes from Craig Barret at CES, he said that he did not expect Intel to take the speed crown back in 2005. That may be shocking, but I see them now focusing more on features. And in many ways this is a good move. But I wonder if they are taking the Dothan core (mobile CPU) and revising it to be a desktop dualcore part? Now that would be some serious speed with some ramping ability.

The wild card will be how the massively powerful CPUs on the consoles will affect PC gaming. PC gamers are going to want stuff at least as good as the consoles. Since the consoles are multicore, that bodes well for future multicored PCs. If AMD can keep pushing the performance area, their good reputation in the enthusiest/performance areas will grow even more, which could do well for AMD. But as Druga Runda noted, inroads in the laptop and other areas are pretty important. Maybe Dell will buy AMD!

 

[T2k]

and AMD will barely post a profit... well the force is strong with Intel.

Well, they have to capitalize first, profit comes after...

But I would say that it will only be 2005 where AMD will properly realise the advantage if they still manage to stay on top... a bit of inertion will be there and more open mindednes in the server sector, plus the desktop sector will be on 90 nm, which will give better margins, if they start making inroads in notebook sector... plus the difficulties that they are having in the channel, like the recent "bad chips" etc... are surely not doing them any favours...

mah AMD has to be on top for at least 5 years straight to get proper profitable stronghold in this whole business... Intel is steamrolling them even when they are weaker - the power of marchitechture...

Exactly. The difference is soo big and we have to see the details - I wonder how their desktop division performed last year?
Also keep in mind Intel has ~10-100x bigger PR budget, so there's no wonder their sales are still strong, not to mention the fact it's not gonna change overnight, especially while they still have their under-the-desk deals with Dell and others..

 

[Akumajou]

I personally think that AMD may have shot themselves in the foot with the premature 64bit cpus on sale when there is no RETAIL 64bit operating system and no RETAIL 64bit programs.

Although to many it sounds good that on paper the AMD-64 is backwards compatible with X86-32 everything, would'nt it have made better sense to have introduced a completely new CPU architecture that would have been 64 bit only and represent a new standard while letting other software developers make "virtual 32bit" program emulators?

Thats how I feel, I feel it would have been better to just squash completely the backwards compatability and just have made an all new platform, something that would really bring a "performance" or technological increase.

Of course even thought Intel has their 64 extensions they are no going to just sit quietly and let AMD be the only 64 bit cpu maker even if they may gradually lose the perfomace crown.

And yes I know that Intel is a much bigger company but like I said earlier, I think AMD shot themselves because to me when I look at their history, they have cloned and adapted to Intel's rules, now that they have initially set the rules it leaves them open for target fodder when the retail 64bit OS and programs ship in the near future.

 

[MasterBaiter]

Another interesting note on how Intel is doing here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1750470,00.asp

Compared to last year they are still down (net income wise) 2.1%. Considering how much Intel has been floundering of late, these numbers are exceptionally impressive. They may have a black eye from AMD, but they're laughing all the way to the bank it seems.

I have a feeling that performance-wise Intel is about ready to come in on an upswing . It should be a very interesting year in cpu's IMO. *holds breath for 6 more months*

 

[Trawler]

Although to many it sounds good that on paper the AMD-64 is backwards compatible with X86-32 everything, would'nt it have made better sense to have introduced a completely new CPU architecture that would have been 64 bit only and represent a new standard while letting other software developers make "virtual 32bit" program emulators?

Didn't Intel try that?

 

[3dilettante]

I personally think that AMD may have shot themselves in the foot with the premature 64bit cpus on sale when there is no RETAIL 64bit operating system and no RETAIL 64bit programs.

Although to many it sounds good that on paper the AMD-64 is backwards compatible with X86-32 everything, would'nt it have made better sense to have introduced a completely new CPU architecture that would have been 64 bit only and represent a new standard while letting other software developers make "virtual 32bit" program emulators?

Thats how I feel, I feel it would have been better to just squash completely the backwards compatability and just have made an all new platform, something that would really bring a "performance" or technological increase.

Of course even thought Intel has their 64 extensions they are no going to just sit quietly and let AMD be the only 64 bit cpu maker even if they may gradually lose the perfomace crown.

And yes I know that Intel is a much bigger company but like I said earlier, I think AMD shot themselves because to me when I look at their history, they have cloned and adapted to Intel's rules, now that they have initially set the rules it leaves them open for target fodder when the retail 64bit OS and programs ship in the near future.

I don't think many developers would want to devote a significant amount of resources to a completely new ISA from AMD. There would be no reason for anyone to switch to such an uncertain bet, especially since without any x86 compatibility AMD's new ISA would have already established 64-bit competitors with their own software bases.

With x86-64 cores, people would actually buy the processors, something AMD really likes to happen.

The best course in theory would have been to continue making an x86-32 line and use the profits to subsidize a 64 bit architecture.
However, somebody far bigger and much more capable of handling the additional strain on money and personnel has already beaten AMD to this (nor is this original, as other ISAs have done the same).

If the K8 core is an example of AMD shooting itself in the foot, it was only to avoid a bullet to the head. The company desperately needed an architecture competitive enough from a performance and marketing standpoint to get selling prices above dirt cheap, which is the primary winning point of the K8 for AMD.

 

[T2k]

I personally think that AMD may have shot themselves in the foot with the premature 64bit cpus on sale when there is no RETAIL 64bit operating system and no RETAIL 64bit programs.

That's unfortunately part of the goodol' under-the-table deals, when the two CEOs went out for a dinner. The fortunate p[rt is apparently it's over, though maybe due to MS ran out of patience.

BTW 5 days ago WinXP has been discontinued on IA64.

Although to many it sounds good that on paper the AMD-64 is backwards compatible with X86-32 everything, would'nt it have made better sense to have introduced a completely new CPU architecture that would have been 64 bit only and represent a new standard while letting other software developers make "virtual 32bit" program emulators?

That's where even Goliath got buttfucked... you are talking about Intel's completely out-of-touch idea which eventually led to this dying Itanium.

Thats how I feel, I feel it would have been better to just squash completely the backwards compatability and just have made an all new platform, something that would really bring a "performance" or technological increase.

Absolutely wrong. That'd have killed the platform and probably even AMD too.

Of course even thought Intel has their 64 extensions they are no going to just sit quietly and let AMD be the only 64 bit cpu maker even if they may gradually lose the perfomace crown.

FYI: Intel not even sits quietly but even implemented AMD's solution. Yes, they did already.

And yes I know that Intel is a much bigger company but like I said earlier, I think AMD shot themselves because to me when I look at their history, they have cloned and adapted to Intel's rules, now that they have initially set the rules it leaves them open for target fodder when the retail 64bit OS and programs ship in the near future.

You're pretty confused, let me just put this way. Last time they cloned was the first Pentium. BTW Intel started the same way, don't forget the facts... so much for snobish talks about copycats...

K7 was a completely new core and actually the first time when they left Intel behind, remember?

 

[T2k]

I personally think that AMD may have shot themselves in the foot with the premature 64bit cpus on sale when there is no RETAIL 64bit operating system and no RETAIL 64bit programs.

Although to many it sounds good that on paper the AMD-64 is backwards compatible with X86-32 everything, would'nt it have made better sense to have introduced a completely new CPU architecture that would have been 64 bit only and represent a new standard while letting other software developers make "virtual 32bit" program emulators?

Thats how I feel, I feel it would have been better to just squash completely the backwards compatability and just have made an all new platform, something that would really bring a "performance" or technological increase.

Of course even thought Intel has their 64 extensions they are no going to just sit quietly and let AMD be the only 64 bit cpu maker even if they may gradually lose the perfomace crown.

And yes I know that Intel is a much bigger company but like I said earlier, I think AMD shot themselves because to me when I look at their history, they have cloned and adapted to Intel's rules, now that they have initially set the rules it leaves them open for target fodder when the retail 64bit OS and programs ship in the near future.

I don't think many developers would want to devote a significant amount of resources to a completely new ISA from AMD. There would be no reason for anyone to switch to such an uncertain bet, especially since without any x86 compatibility AMD's new ISA would have already established 64-bit competitors with their own software bases.

With x86-64 cores, people would actually buy the processors, something AMD really likes to happen.

The best course in theory would have been to continue making an x86-32 line and use the profits to subsidize a 64 bit architecture.
However, somebody far bigger and much more capable of handling the additional strain on money and personnel has already beaten AMD to this (nor is this original, as other ISAs have done the same).

If the K8 core is an example of AMD shooting itself in the foot, it was only to avoid a bullet to the head. The company desperately needed an architecture competitive enough from a performance and marketing standpoint to get selling prices above dirt cheap, which is the primary winning point of the K8 for AMD.

Pretty accurate assesment, congrat.

 

[Fox5]

K7 was a completely new core and actually the first time when they left Intel behind, remember?

I think K5 was as well, but it sucked. Then there was K6 which was definetely new, but is the athlon an evolution of it or did AMD just sell the k6, and then scrap it for the athlon?
The K6 line was semi competitive, 3dnow helped a lot, but without it it looked sort of like...
K6 = Celeron
K6-2 = Pentium 2
K6-3 = Pentium 3...but K6-3 had tons of cache and cost as much to produce as an athlon which performed even better.(clocked higher, and would outperform a 500mhz k6-3 or p3, though the lower clocked cache hurt it at higher speeds)

BTW, if 3d acclerators hadn't entered into and taken over the market I bet the athlon would have had like no market share at all, it would have had crap performance compared to the p4(p4 kills athlon at software rendering). Also the K8 wouldn't have looked anything like the current one, I'd imagine it would have been more like the P4 in design, or maybe a G5.(if amd was still in business at the point and able to produce a competitive design)

 

[asicnewbie]

Re: Not having the "Performance Crown" hurting Int

Re: Not having the "Performance Crown" hurting Intel?

Evidently not:

Hmm, this journalist seems to disagree:
Analysis: Intel's results mask underlying problems

 

[Fox5]

Intel may have imploded recently, but it's going to take a while to deflate so it'll have plenty of time to fix their problems.
If amd can continue with faster and cooler running chips than intel(and maybe even more advanced) they will slowly eat away at intel's market share. Probably the only thing that could almost instantly swing a large amount of the market to amd would be a large performance and price advantage. An AMD system needs to perform 50% better than an Intel system at 1/4 the cost. Maybe not quite that extreme, but an either-or of those would probably be required. Right now AMD offers more like a 10% performance increase for 10% higher cost.(comparing the high end of both companies)

 

[hovz]

Intel may have imploded recently, but it's going to take a while to deflate so it'll have plenty of time to fix their problems.
If amd can continue with faster and cooler running chips than intel(and maybe even more advanced) they will slowly eat away at intel's market share. Probably the only thing that could almost instantly swing a large amount of the market to amd would be a large performance and price advantage. An AMD system needs to perform 50% better than an Intel system at 1/4 the cost. Maybe not quite that extreme, but an either-or of those would probably be required. Right now AMD offers more like a 10% performance increase for 10% higher cost.(comparing the high end of both companies)

 

[T2k]

Probably the only thing that could almost instantly swing a large amount of the market to amd would be a large performance and price advantage. An AMD system needs to perform 50% better than an Intel system at 1/4 the cost. Maybe not quite that extreme, but an either-or of those would probably be required. Right now AMD offers more like a 10% performance increase for 10% higher cost.(comparing the high end of both companies)

LOL

 

[MasterBaiter]

AMD can barely handle the volume that they currently do. I think there's more to it than just price & performance to be addressed if AMD were to have any chance of being anything more than a bit player. :?

 

[T2k]

I think they need to raise the production level soon. It'd be good to have a second Dresden but financially it'd kill them.

 

[Blade]

I'm going to buy into AMD pretty soon, I think. I like what I see on the horizon from them.

Intel is a powerhouse, but AMD isn't going anywhere.