5.08.2007

Scientia's Poor Attempt To Appear Unbiased

I suggest you go over Scientia's blog and have a good read:
http://scientiasblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/amd-is-doomed.html
Scientia said:
"I constantly get accused of being slanted/biased/pro/fan in favor of AMD. So, I'm going to try to see the world through the eyes of an unabashed Intel enthusiast. This is not an easy point of view to maintain though because Common Sense keeps getting in the way."

As you can see from his first paragraph, he doesn't get even past the 2nd sentence while quickly abandoning the attempt.

While his common sense tends to get in the way with his poor attempt to argue for Intel, mine was laughing at the trivial arguments raised. If anyone wishes to make a case as to why AMD may be doomed, all you have to do is look at AMD's conference call and listen to the questions that were raised. Read the guidance report from major investment banks. Read the industry and market reports from Gartner or Mercury and watch where the trends lead to.

AMD is back to below 80% market share. AMD's entire product portfolio is outclassed and outsold by Intel's product. AMD is making huge losses due to lower volume shipment and ASPs. AMD's $900M inventory continues to grow with a disgruntled channel and a wrong product mix. AMD was forced to cut costs and stop critical Fab upgrades. AMD and was forced to take in more debt and restructure its broken business model. The real kicker now is that AMD doesn't seem to have a concrete plan to turn things around.

Is AMD Doomed? By any normal standard; revenue losses, borrowing money, restructuring, its easy to claim that AMD has already lost. If we even apply Intel's standards on AMD, it may appear that AMD has been DOOMED for quite some time now. Do not be influenced by the low standards the AMD fanbase apply to their beloved company. AMD is struggling like never before and it is only a heartbeat from closing shop.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

LOL the funniest part is Scientia trying to 'make up' arguments on behalf of Intel fanboys.

AMD fanboys should never try to see things through the eye of an Intel fanboy, and vice versa. You just end up making bullshit arguments up like Scientia did just then. LOL

Heat said...

Scientia is an idiot of epic proportions what lil respect i had for the dude or chick has totally diminished. Any one using "common sense" would know almost all of the things he made arguments about are BS.

Scientia from AMD ZONE being biased towards AMD......naw he is the beacon of balance just like fox news.

Anonymous said...

They say that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

TheKhalif said...

Why would he have to meet your definition of unbiased? I don't see any difference in your Intel opinions.

Liking acompany can be for a lot of reasons, just as disliking one.

He is right about how Intel "" speak. Sarcasm is sometmes the only way to make a point.

Anonymous said...

Is Roborat claiming to be unbiased?

Roborat, Ph. D. said...

who cares about partiality?
just try and see for yourself who's been mostly correct and who's prediction are way off.

Anonymous said...

Khalif: "Why would he have to meet your definition of unbiased? I don't see any difference in your Intel opinions."

He doesn't have to be unbiased, but to call his comments "common sense" where they are the opinion of an AMD fan is ridiculous.

On top of that he is a complete idiot when it comes to commenting on semiconductor processing and manufacturing:

He claims the extra metal layer AMD (I should say IBM) uses is offset by moving to immersion litho early (vs double patterning technique Intel uses). He fails to realize the immersion tool is twice the capital cost AND slower throughput (as it is a relatively mature tool it's uptime is also likely to be slightly lower than a mature 193nm dry tool) so it is actually MORE EXPENSIVE than double patterning...forget the cost of an entire extra metal layer or two.

He also states that AMD is now about the same as Intel on 45nm PROCESS technology (this is a pullin of his already RIDICULOUS position of his at most 6 months behind):
A) He equates schedule with process technology - Intel's 45nm technology at it launch will be far SUPERIOR process performance wise (note I did not say clock speed, or mix in architectural impacts) and AMD at launch will essentially be a65nm process performance with lower Vt and with 45nm dimensions - it will be at least 1-1.5 years for PROCESS PERFORMANCE to catch up (I'm basing this on AMD's own comments on high K schedule). Apparently Scientia doesn't realize simply printing smaller dimensions doesn't necesarily mean performance increases.
B) Apparently Scientia now thinks the schedule is the same - I guess we will see 45nm products on sale this year from AMD? After all he claims SRAM was the same (which is VERY debatable), thus manufacturing release must be the same? That's how it works right?

He should stick to commenting on what he knows... of course that would likely mean an article once a year on his prediction of whether the groundhog sees his shadow or not.

Anonymous said...

I doubt he even knows what a groundhog is.

Heat said...

AMD fanbois dont worry about facts and knowledge that is why it is soo great to be them. At any given point and time one of them can just start talking out of their ass and there will be plenty more to believe that fud without question. Just ask "thekhalif" his fud spreading is net famous.

Anonymous said...

Let's look in detail at more garbage from Scientia:

"CS: AMD is now making processors in three different FABs (FAB 30, FAB 36, and Chartered) plus TSMC and UMC for Chipsets."

Let's see one of those fabs is 90nm 20mm wafers! (F30) And one of those fabs is producing a whopping 1000 WSPM - which translates to 10 LOTS A WEEK! 10 Lots a week is less than Intel's pathfinding volume (32nm and beyond)! But I guess you can call that significant for production!

...so this should be read as basically one fab.... F36? Did AMD build 36 fabs or are they just ratcheting up the #'s to make it look like they have done a whole lot (hint: it's the latter).

"CS: Then why is Intel bumping the thermal limits on Kentsfield at 3.0GHz with a stock HSF? And, why is Intel waiting until 45nm to release anything faster?"

Errr... they moved from dual core too quad core at same thermal limits... to a person who has even the most BASIC knowledge, doubling the # of cores (and therefore tranistors) while maintaining same clockspeed and TDP's means an improvement has been made.... and why produce 65nm higher clocked parts when you can produce them more cheaply (and at lower power) on 45nm? ...exactly what is the need to release a higher clocked 65nm part right now? To compete with the 90nm X2 6000 spaceheater (fighting to suppress laughter)

"CS: Aside from SSE4, isn't Penryn just a Merom with more cache and a faster FSB?"

Well first Penryn was just a "dumb shrink with more cache". Now he has acknowledged SSE4, perhaps after a little RESEARCH he'll notice the Penryn just might have slightly higher clockspeeds and a few other minor architectural differences...

"And, with it's modular core design AMD should be able to deliver its own upgrade to K11 in 2009."

So K11 is 2009 according to common sense - funny i've heard nothing from AMD about K11?

"Most likely the sharp drop in AMD's ASP was due to competition from discounted P4's and AMD's desire to hold onto its volume share."

Huh? So I understand AMD needed to lower ASP's to be competitive with P4's?!?!?? Ummmm....maybe not.... Desire to hold volume share...well they lost share....so that didn't work out too well...

How about lowering ASP's because demand for their chip fell off a cliff? And the only way to attempt to move inventory was to slash prices (they did this how many time this in the last 6 months?)...but then again it could be just AMD trying to be competitive with the falling P4 prices (again trying to suppress laughter)

"Intel will bury AMD with low prices.

CS: AMD's new DTX motherboard standard seems to be pretty popular and it was designed to reduce costs on desktop systems."

So exactly how does this impact ASP OF A CPU? Having DTX will enable AMD to produce cheaper CPU's? Errr... let me see... oh this is a DTX CPU wafer... this wafer only cost $2500 to make as it is "DTX" where this other wafer with identical processing costs $3500 (you know because it is non-DTX)... Hey we can now lower prices because DTX chips are cheaper to manufacture... Please tell me he is not this stupid! Hmmm... AM2 DTX chip cost is lower than SAME AM2 ATX chip? Are you freakin kidding me? Maybe the MOBO is cheaper but last I checked that is not a big revenue stream for AMD... Have you even SEEN a price of a DTX board yet?

And "seems to be pretty popular"... based on what data? Oh that's right it's common sense... no data needed!

"CS: Apples' desktop sales have been stagnant for the past three years."

Notice the mention of DESKTOP! (which is the slowest growing of the 3 main CPU markets) Apples market share has increased ever since incorporating Intel chips... no mention of server of mobile... It should be clear to everyone that as Apple is obviously only selling to old people who have previously owned Mac's and that they must be buying multiple computers (to support the increased market share Apple now has. But hey why let those pesky facts get in the way of a good "common sense" argument.

"Intel has lost its former advantage of having multiple research projects to reduce risk."

Again a lack of knowledge - having two design teams is to have two designs under development at all times... if one fails (see netburst) Intel has shown ability to ride this out with superior process and manufacturing technologies... AMD on the other hand is in an all or nothing with every architecture development. While I think K10 will be sucessful, would AMD be able to ride things out on K8 until K11 came along in ~2010?

"CS: If Intel is the best then HPC is very curious. Intel was dominant in HPC with its 32 bit Xeon servers."

HPC is clearly dominated by interconnect technology and that is where AMD's superior HT/IMC technologies shine - this has NOTHING TO DO WITH IPC OR INDIVIDUAL CORE CAPABILITES, and I do not think any (knowledgeable) "Intel fan" would dispute that. You will notice this superiority is rendered virtually meaningless in the vast volume of all CPU sales (1P&2P servers, mobile, desktop).

As a business I would rather dominate the vast majority of sales than a niche market so I can claim "superiority"... of course I would like to run a business that actuall ymakes money as opposed to one that is technology "superior" and is only bleeding money because it's competitor "is not playing fair"...

Anonymous said...

"CS: Well, AMD took a big hit in revenue, no doubt. But, I haven't yet seen volume numbers. The only comment I've seen suggests that AMD's volume drop was only about 1/3rd of the revenue drop."

This was one of the "common sense" comments. Here of course is some actual data if he or anyone else cares:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312507108224/d10q.htm


The intereseting part:
"Computing Solutions net revenue of $918 million in the first quarter of 2007 decreased 38 percent compared to net revenue of $1,486 million in the fourth quarter of 2006 primarily as a result of a 37 percent decrease in unit shipments and a 10 percent decrease in average selling prices for our microprocessors as compared to the fourth quarter of 2006."


Of course it's not like this is an official document (it's only a 10-Q) and it's not like AMD filed it (sarcasm), and I'm just a fanboy....

Hmmm... looks like pretty much just revenue share loss to me?!?! Can I bury my head in the sand any deeper?

Anonymous said...

Another interesting tidbit from the AMD 10Q:

"Graphics net revenue of $197 million in the first quarter of 2007 increased 19 percent compared to net revenue of $166 million in the fourth quarter of 2006 as a result of a 54 percent increase in unit shipments."

54% increase in unit shipments and yet only a 19% revenue increase?!?!? Is Hector using the same strategy in the graphics area too? You know the "to hell with profits, real men have market share"

Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

54% increase in unit shipments and yet only a 19% revenue increase?!?!?

Can mean one of two things:
1. Tanking ASP due to less favorable product mix and/or tough pricing environment.

2. Result of channel stuffing: ship tons of inventory with pricing incentives but suffer on the revenue recognition side until it clears the channel.

My guess is 2- although the inventory situation is still fairly ugly- it went from 61 to 89 days of inventory. Not healthy at all, and certainly not indicative of "selling everything they make".

Anonymous said...

Actually, reading a bit more of the 10Q it is due to the fact that Q4 results were based on 9 weeks where Q1 was based on 13 weeks (an ~45% delta)

What is really scary is that despite an additional 4 weeks of revenue, total revenue was up 19% which means it was actually WAY DOWN ad unit shipments were only slightly up...

I think it was ASP hit, I doubt there was much channel stuffing as R600 continued to get delayed - if they stuffed in Q1 wouldn't there be a significant shortage in Q2 (and likely Q3) as R600 ramps? Q2 would be the quarter to stuff the channel, so they could slash pricing on old product to hurt Nvidia while they scale the R600 (much like Intel did with P4/Core2). Of course R600 does not appear to be superior to the Nvidia offerings so this strategy might not work....

Anonymous said...

More Scientia FUD:

"Yes, but it is so liberating to know that SOI is less susceptible to overheating than bulk silicon like Intel uses."

I believe he has taken a statement from the SOITEC (SOI supplier) website and has completely misinterperted it! SOI can handle more extreme ambient temp situations, hwoever this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NORMAL CPU conditions. Why does Intel's bulk Si overclock better than AMD's SOI - that's right it's because AMD can better handle heat leading to better overclockability... ummm... wait a sec that's not right... I mean to say AMD's process rules! Just because!

"Yes, but Intel's chipset monopoly is now broken."

Please define monopoly and then look up Intel's chipset market share, IDIOT!

"Intel employs nearly 100,000 people"

If one prefers to round 92,000up instead of down to make the # seem more impressive....

"There is also reason to believe that if APM does become an advantage for AMD that Intel will create its own version."

What a feakin idiot - this statement proves to me he has no clue about manufacturing! Every, and I mean every, no just Intel and AMD, has either their own version or an off the shelf version of production control software. AMD continues to tout the system, yet has shown not a single data point (other than # of patents which is a a completely useless indicator!) of how this makes them better then any other competitor. Yield benefit? Bin splits? Cycle time? Equipment utilization? Cost? Process performance? The complete and utter lack of data to support why APM might be better is deafening.

"Finally, although AMD and Intel do approach manufacturing differently there has yet to be demonstrated any significant difference in results."

There's this conference called IEDM - they actually publish MEASURED performance from various companies on process technology performance. May want to check this out before showing off your ignorance (yet again). Also time to market may also be considered a difference? I mean if UMC came out with today with a better 0.18um process than Intel's from a decade ago would it matter?

"Intel has alienated a lot of customers."

Pot...kettle...black... what do you think AMD did to the channel fdor the last 9 months?

"Hey does anyone want some semprons? We've decided to cut off all of your supply to our best chip so we can give them to Dell. Trust us when we finally can make some more we'll sell them to you, of course they will be at a higher price than what Dell pays, but hey, that's business... Q3 - we had some channel supply problems, but they've been fixed going forward. Q4 - we've had some channel supply problems, but they've been fixed. Q1- we've had some channel supply problems, but hey this time we really got 'em fixed! (Anyone want to bet on K10 availability to the channel? mid-2008?) In the meantime I got some semprons for you...please keep supporting the underdog though. Thanks, signed AMD.