-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel laying off a fith of its work force.
- Thread starter locutus12
- Start date
VeNT said:
well they did mention core in the video report but stated it will be some time before core has any effect on profit margins.
Dolph said:
You asked me that same question in one of my threads a few weeks back,
my answer is still the same. Intel has maintained its dominant position in the desktop sector by subsidising pc distributors to only use Intel CPU`s, its common knowledge that Intel has done this for years. This is the single reason why AMD, a company who had a better, cheaper, more power efficient product for the last 3 years has seen no note worthy gains in its desktop market shares despite it having the better product for that period.
if Intel stops all discount and subsidisation schemes then the playing ground is instantly level, the smaller guys like AMD and even VIA can then compete and i will no longer have any issues at all with Intel.
intel must just hate the way this little company called AMD has outdone them on so many occations, there worried, its shockingly obvious, intel now fear AMD/ATI. still doesn't stop the fact AMD are being oppressed in the mainstream market (barring server) by the schemers over at intel, in the world today intel are considered the evil (empire) semi-conductor manufacturer and AMD are considered the good, honest (rebellion) manufacturer, intel need to seriously look at there strategies in the coming months and win with products rather than basically bribing dell, HP, etc. into use there processors 
Edit: would be great to see VIA come back into this battle, but with intel the way they are, VIA don't have a chance, should join AMD. would be better for AMD and VIA
Edit: would be great to see VIA come back into this battle, but with intel the way they are, VIA don't have a chance, should join AMD. would be better for AMD and VIA
I laughed...locutus12 said:well they did mention core in the video report but stated it will be some time before core has any effect on profit margins.
You asked me that same question in one of my threads a few weeks back,
This is the single reason why AMD, a company who had a better, cheaper, more power efficient product for the last 3 years has seen no note worthy gains in its desktop market shares despite it having the better product for that period.
if Intel stops all discount and subsidisation schemes then the playing ground is instantly level, the smaller guys like AMD and even VIA can then compete and i will no longer have any issues at all with Intel.
If only things were that simple... they're not. Yes Intel offers good discounts/incentives to bulk buyers. As do AMD, and as do all companies that want to stay in business.
The reason AMD are where they are is because of supply. A simple economic variable that they've barely been able to satisfy for as long as I can remember. In AMD its a constant battle between R+D and FABs of where money is directed. If money goes into R+D then, great, it keeps enthusiasts happy. But if money goes into FABs then it makes people like Dell happy(er) because of increased ability to supply.
AMD is suing Intel for no other reason than their simple frustration over where their money was being channeled 6-7 years ago. Problem is, if they didn't do the R+D for the K7/K8 then the other important variable, demand, wouldn't be where it needs to be in order to build more FABs.
AMD is pinning its hopes on K8L. A fairly lightweight set of changes to an established core design. That way they can strike a relative balance between sending money to R+D and FABs and they're hoping it will pay off. I'm pretty sure it will, much to Intel's dismay.
Last edited:
NathanE said:
now whos being simplistic... you forget to mention that part of the conditions for a company to be eligable for intels discounts which are far greater in number than AMD`s is the understanding that said company will not use a competitors CPU`s in their desktops, dell were one of the companys named that has been bullied over the years into accepting this arrangement from Intel, and with profit margins so tight on PC`s these days, if Dell losts its discounts from intel it could have been very bad for Dell.
as for supply, give AMD a market to compete in and they will find a way to fill it. "they dont have the capacity" isnt a good enough excuse for the near stagnent market share on the desktop side.
as for the rest of your post, i pretty much agree
Last edited:
locutus12 said:now whos being simplistic... you forget to mention that part of the conditions for a company to be eligable for intels discounts which are far greater in number than AMD`s is the understanding that said company will not use a competitors CPU`s in their desktops, dell were one of the companys named that has been bullied over the years into accepting this arrangement from Intel, and with profit margins so tight on PC`s these days, if Dell losts its discounts from intel it could have been very bad for Dell.
as for supply, give AMD a market to compete in and they will find a way to fill it. "they dont have the capacity" isnt a good enough excuse for the near stagnent market share on the desktop side.
as for the rest of your post, i pretty much agree
You also manage to conviently forget that the biggest purchaser of desktop PCs is not the home consumer (as I pointed out to you last time
), and business customers are far more set in their ways than domestic ones.The phrase "No-one gets fired for buying Intel" is one that resonates all through the business computing market, and it's an opinion that matters, a lot. Most companies know and trust intel, and if intel chips prove a problem, most purchasers won't get the sack (an important factor if you're weighing up which one you have to recommend the company buys). By contrast, if you bought AMD and something went wrong.... Yes, it's all down to perception, but never underestimate the value of brand inertia and trust.
And don't try and claim AMD could fulfill demand on a level playing field, AMD don't even have the capacity at present to supply Dell if dell wanted exclusively AMD chips, even if they refused to supply anyone else.... They do NOT have the manufacturering capacity even to do that much more than they are doing now, hence why they are frantically building fabs in an effort to improve things. Their stagnant market share currently is a good thing for AMD, or possibly in place because of AMD, if the chips can't be made, they can't be supplied to the customer. Very few companies have 9nm fabs with spare capacity to lease to AMD either.
All this "It's the evil intel's fault, they gave subsidies" tends to get a little old, and ignores the real causes of the problem.
Dolph said:
Exclusively ?? who said anything about AMD wanting that? a few dell lines with AMD cpu`s is all they need to build on but with intel making sure the big boys remain exclusive by using illegal discounts to force them into that possition, AMD will never be able to grow.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,034
Here is my response to a few of the comments made in this thread:
To those saying the job cuts are a bad thing, i diasagree. This makes Intel a much leaner company that can focus better on its core business, making CPU's. It will bring costs down and thus profits up, which means we as the consumer are more likely to get better chips at cheaper prices.
Of late, the "Intel beating down on AMD with rebates and exclusivity deals" type comments are not so true but people forget what it was like just a few years ago. I really do believe that AMD would currently have and be able to supply, a much bigger market share if Intel had alway's played fair. They would have had higher profits and more demand enabling them to channel more money in to new fabs, earlier than they did. AMD seem to believe this too and that is what the anti-trust case is partly about.
Im am pretty certain that Intel have always made their own integrated graphics solutions (hence why they are so poor in graphical performance). The push to hire more GPU architecs is because they see the move to on die GPU's for the low end and integrated segment coming about sooner rather than later.
It is all pre-core2duo but as i said long before release and have been saying for quite a while, supply of core2duo is low and uptake in the mainstream market will be slow. Intel won't have ramped up enough capacity by the end of the year to make any difference to the next 2 quarters. After that they are gonna face problems with shifting stock of the P4's even at the slashed prices like they are now. This will only get worse as people start demanding core2 over P4's. After that we have K8L which may well give AMD the performance corwn again, especially in the server market and 1/2U+ (at 4U things are still very close to call). Then the next gen of Turion will be out (built from the ground up as a mobile cpu)... obviously Intel has their own answers to these, but if both companies stay competitive, margins for both will stay low and so will profits. I can't see any turn around on this sorta news for a good long while.
It is certainly going to be interesting.
To those saying the job cuts are a bad thing, i diasagree. This makes Intel a much leaner company that can focus better on its core business, making CPU's. It will bring costs down and thus profits up, which means we as the consumer are more likely to get better chips at cheaper prices.
Of late, the "Intel beating down on AMD with rebates and exclusivity deals" type comments are not so true but people forget what it was like just a few years ago. I really do believe that AMD would currently have and be able to supply, a much bigger market share if Intel had alway's played fair. They would have had higher profits and more demand enabling them to channel more money in to new fabs, earlier than they did. AMD seem to believe this too and that is what the anti-trust case is partly about.
Im am pretty certain that Intel have always made their own integrated graphics solutions (hence why they are so poor in graphical performance). The push to hire more GPU architecs is because they see the move to on die GPU's for the low end and integrated segment coming about sooner rather than later.
It is all pre-core2duo but as i said long before release and have been saying for quite a while, supply of core2duo is low and uptake in the mainstream market will be slow. Intel won't have ramped up enough capacity by the end of the year to make any difference to the next 2 quarters. After that they are gonna face problems with shifting stock of the P4's even at the slashed prices like they are now. This will only get worse as people start demanding core2 over P4's. After that we have K8L which may well give AMD the performance corwn again, especially in the server market and 1/2U+ (at 4U things are still very close to call). Then the next gen of Turion will be out (built from the ground up as a mobile cpu)... obviously Intel has their own answers to these, but if both companies stay competitive, margins for both will stay low and so will profits. I can't see any turn around on this sorta news for a good long while.
It is certainly going to be interesting.
Last edited:
locutus12 said:
I never said they wanted to do that, it was simply an illustration as to the limits of AMD's production capacity.
Incidentally, what makes you believe the discounts are illegal? There is nothing illegal about offering a contract with benefits for exclusive deals. The only time such a thing can be regarded as illegal are if you're in a monopoly position (Intel aren't, but no doubt some people will claim they are, usually those who can't beat intel in the market, similar to the reason many people claim MS is a monopoly) or if you can be proved to be operating a cartel via this method.
I could develop a product and sell it to OcUK (for example) and offer it to them cheaper if they agreed not to stock a competitors similar product, it would be legal and entirely down to the company as to whether they decided my terms are reasonable. Same for bulk buying discount.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 433
- Location
- Milton Keynes
In response to some of the discussions about monopoly's and restrictive trade contracts, this should have an interesting effect and help create that 'level playing field' people have been asking for
Dell shipping AMD chips
Dell shipping AMD chips