tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post3686012234872776580..comments2023-10-26T15:06:30.940+00:00Comments on AIMeD Corporation: The importance of the performance crownRoborat, Ph.Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04845879517177508741noreply@blogger.comBlogger179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-85958595329920444022008-05-06T12:38:00.000+00:002008-05-06T12:38:00.000+00:00But as a self-anointed authority on all things sem...But as a self-anointed authority on all things semi-conductor related, he can't be educated. What a waste of a mind.<BR/><BR/>Guess what I can up with after all the hype, spin and horseshit? Those IDIOTS who bought into this bag of crap have to explain to their shareholders and bosses WHY THEY BOUGHT THE “SCRAPY LITTLE COMPANY” AND SOLD INTEL SHORT! <BR/><BR/>As an Intel employee it has been fun to watch things from the sidelines, even over at Scientia's blog, however, the quality of dialogue is vastly superior here. (some may accuse me of bias, but that's ok :) )<BR/><BR/>I'm impressed by the knowledge and experience many of the posters here have shown. Many of the assumptions and educated guesses of Intel's process and operations are strikingly spot on, while some may be a tad off ;)<BR/><BR/>Please keep up the good work and I'll comment from time-to-time from an insider's point of view.<BR/><BR/>Lest anyone be confused by the drivel posted by Scientia regarding Intel's "destruction" of 45nm chips here ...<BR/><BR/>whatever Semiconductor for Dummies book Scientia might be reading at the moment, it must be really old.<BR/><BR/>If they raised their standard to INTC's, AMD's Cripple Cores would be trash.<BR/><BR/>despite Dementia's assumption that D1d = development fab = low volume, D1d is roughly the size (capcity-wise) of AMD's F36! <BR/><BR/>But in Scientia's little world apparently schedule is the onlu thing that matters who cares if the wheels are falling off and the process engine is sputtering...<BR/><BR/>Scientia's thoughts on D1d chips are laughable as many posters are pointing out...<BR/><BR/>"This suggests that Intel's bulk production quality lags its initial production quality by a full year"<BR/><BR/>Scientia hitting the bottle!<BR/><BR/>It is simply astounding how little knowledge Scientia has in this area.<BR/><BR/>As for Abinstein - the guy is a joke... <BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work ROBO!<BR/><BR/>Dementia's have indicated the ridiculous of his assertions about Intel destroying their early 45nm production because it was inferior to 65nm. He thought this because he misinterperted a statement by Otellini as he lacks any sort of financial background, yet somehow felt qualified and compelled to draw an absurd (and wrong) statement as it was a potentially negative data point (of course it has been shown not to be the case) for Intel.<BR/><BR/>Funny when things are shown to be wrong at it doesn't change his preconceived conclusion (that he tries to fit the data to), he will update his blog. It remains to seen if he will update this misinformation as well?!?<BR/><BR/>As it is the only thing propping up his absurd "45nm is not in as great a shape as those Intel fanboys think" assertion, it is probably unlikely he will correct it. (Unless of course he can twist/spin some other data to once again fit his predetermined conclusions).<BR/><BR/>I HAD little respect for him, I now have ZERO respect for him. We all make mistakes, but a man with INTEGRITY will stand up and own up to them. A WISE man also will know his limitations and not try to draw absurd conclusions on data/statements he knows very little about. (And then in Dementia's case then use his own IGNORANCE as an excuse for them misinterpertation!)<BR/><BR/>I think it is clear to all now that Scientia has neither integrity or wisdom. (But the blog still makes for good entertainment due to the absurd reasoning and argument skills!)<BR/><BR/>We need some fresh meat. I am bored of Christian Howel and Abinstein.<BR/><BR/>You missed the most important point Dementia had on DTX - it will allow lower costs in the budget area....<BR/><BR/>you talking about someone that rhymes with dementia?<BR/><BR/>scheming scientia<BR/>idle fella<BR/>closet fanboy<BR/>baked a half ploy<BR/>blame it on dementia<BR/><BR/> In fact Dementia, Abinidiot, et al made a big deal of this saying how great it was and that AMD would not be going back to effectively one fab during the conversion. Now he is saying the exact opposite decision is the right one, because it is easier operationally, blah, blah, blah, never set foot in a fab so I'll spout out more words to make it seem like I'm an expert on this...organizational complexity....blah blah blah...<BR/><BR/>The truth is whenever AMD changes a decision it is OBVIOUSLY the right thing to do and Scientia obviously has the right argument behind it!?!<BR/><BR/>So, was does this show Dementia and Company? Ya don’t need a super long, phallic pipeline to get super clocks! All ya need is the best people and chip company IN THE WORLD! <BR/><BR/>hahahaha lmfao@scientia<BR/><BR/>Roborat, don't you know that the Crysis benchmark was compiled to favor Intel and cripple AMD? What are you thinking, man? ;P<BR/><BR/>LOL anonymous poster, thanks for posting Scientia's oh so accurate 'predictions'! :D<BR/><BR/>45nm doesn't appear to be as poor as Scientia attempted to suggest through his ridiculous analysis that Intel was throwing away inferior 45nm parts (due to his lack of financial knowlegde)<BR/><BR/>I do hate to sound like a broken record (like some of those AMD fanboys<BR/><BR/>PHENOM IS SIMPLY FRAGGED TO PIECES BY EXISTING INTEL CPUS.<BR/><BR/>SUPERPI 1M scores: <BR/><BR/>This isn't even counting Yorkfield, which will report even better scores!<BR/><BR/>RV670 PRE-FRAGGED BY 8800 GT:<BR/><BR/>In other news, AMD renamed the SPIDER platform to SNAIL platform. This reflects the snail pace that the PHENOM CPU and RV670 graphics cards run at!<BR/><BR/>It is quite plain to see that Intel is holding back considering the new 45nm processors can clearly clock up to 4Ghz on air and much much higher with a little effort yet Intel refuses to release any processors officially clocked over 3.16 Ghz.<BR/><BR/>F**k’en A Bubba!<BR/><BR/>Well, here it is folks. The Pheromone C2D killer, the one that was going to destroy Clovertown by 40%, will be launched @ 2.3GHz. B.F.D. !!!<BR/><BR/>Further, In The Know, Doc, GURU, and so many others on this site, your analysis and predictions have been 100% correct. All commentary ranging back for one year has been formally substantiated and postulated with clairvoyant precision.<BR/><BR/>Let me see if I can crawl into the mind of the great Dementia<BR/><BR/>It's funny he has become like a politician - he understates everything about AMD's roadmap so he can say they met/exceeded it and he intentionally overestimates Intel's roadmap so he can say they are behind or late. <BR/><BR/>Wow - there is just so much misiformation in Scientia's latest blog it is getting ridiculous <BR/><BR/>Looks to me like Scientia is just making excuses on why AMD is behind (now that he finally seems to accept that they are behind). I guess an extremely ignorant Intel fanboy could claim that AMD should be much further ahead as they have 4 companies working together as opposed to Intel doing it on it's own. That of course would be just as stupid as Dementia's people and spending arguments.<BR/><BR/>I would sign up for an account and post on his blog but would he really listen? (That's a rhetorical question - the answer is rather clear) Folks here should feel free to post the links I attached if they'd like! I would enjoy trying to see him wriggle out of his completely ignorant OPC comments!<BR/><BR/>Not a frick'en genius - its just compared to Dementia, I appear to be one. But then again when it comes to Si technology, my dog would also seem like a frick'en genius compared to scientia! <BR/><BR/>I just get upset when people pose as experts (under the guise of a blog), don't provide any support to backup their ridiculous statements and then refuse to acknowledge a counter point of view. <BR/><BR/>I'll say it again - Scientia has concluded in his own mind that AMD is "close" or "equivalent" or "not too far behind" Intel on process technology - he thus tries to make all data FIT that conclusion (rather than looking at the data first and trying to form a conclusion). As a scientist, this is amusing to me as it goes against everything a real scientist or engineer would do. You don't start with a pre-formed conclusion and then try to dig up data to support it and at the same time exclude data that disproves it. <BR/><BR/>I still find a surprising amount of entertainment in just watching him try to adapt concepts and topics he clearly doesn't understand (like OPC, SRAM cell size, RDR) into a support structure for his ridiculous assertions. It's almost amusing as his 'followers' writing great blog, as they also have no clue what some of the things Scientia is mentioning. <BR/><BR/>For Scientia to dismiss it,with obviously no technical background on what RDR is, means, and how it is used....is absurd. Not quite as absurd as his talking about SRAM cell size and gate length to suggest that it is not RDR giving Intel an edge, but absurd none the less. But still less absurd the his stubborn use of a technology node launch date and a comparison of clockspeeds on 2 different microarchitectures as the key metric to judge how far ahead/behind folks are on process technology. This is just so simplistic it is beyond funny - but then again what really could you expect given Scientia's limited background on Si processing? <BR/><BR/>And one of the reasons I think AMD fans/employees don't post here is they know the unfounded crap that they tend to spew will not be taken as gospel without a challenge and a request for supporting informartion. <BR/><BR/>Good one! But, I have the real truth here. Some of AMD's engineers were working late one night to fix these bugs and needed to stop for dinner. Hector Ruiz previously agreed that the company would pay for chinese food, since the engineers had to work such late shifts. But since the company is in serious financial trouble they couldn't afford to have the food delivered. The engineers had to take fifteen minutes of valuable time to collect the food. Since they lost these fifteen minutes they decided that these critical bugs just weren't worth fixing, so they decided to wait until 45nm to fix them!<BR/><BR/>and as usual, Scientia has hard time undertsand this, especially when thing paint possitively on intel's side.<BR/><BR/>Wow the misinformation on Scientia's blog just continues to mushroom, here's another comment (not from Scientia)<BR/><BR/>Where's that abinstein douchebag? Looks to be hiding from the Penryn massacre.<BR/><BR/>Let's motivate George Ou to write an article calling out AMD on this lapse.<BR/><BR/>This is beyond ridiculous. Even beyond beyond ridculous is Dementia still holding the faith.<BR/><BR/>I'm so confused, do I believe digitimes or Scientia's blog - Scientia has such a well documented background in manufacturing and technology (second only to Sharikou of course), I have to believe everything he writes even though he doesn't provide any facts to support it.<BR/><BR/>Where have abinstein and baronhowell now that Intel's Penryn performance numbers have been outed?<BR/><BR/>Chicken shits.<BR/><BR/>AMDZone has gone the way of the dodo. I guess the owner wanted to prevent mass suicides due to Penryn.<BR/><BR/>Scientia will try his unique brand of spin and censorship and claim that he does not have AMD bias.<BR/><BR/>Chicken shits.<BR/><BR/>Come on folks, be nice, you all need to remember this.<BR/><BR/>Scientia is never wrong, but on occasion, reality has failed to meet his expectations.<BR/><BR/>Shockingly enough it appears Scientia is wrong AGAIN and actually had no support behind his statements other than his typical EMPIRICAL observatiosn ("genererally speaking a chip will come out in production 6 months after demo"). This is what happpens when you lack knowledge of what is going on and try to form conlcusion on empirical observations.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure Scientia will spin this someway positive for AMD, soem possible explanations/FUD:<BR/><BR/>Don't forget, the lower the yields are for the quad-core, the higher the yields are for the tri-core.<BR/><BR/>By correlation,<BR/>AMD's delay of their tri-core can only mean one thing: they are having excellent yields on their quad-cores!<BR/><BR/>See, win-win situation again for AMD.<BR/><BR/>Scientia's used to eating crow. He's so consistently worng that i'm beginning to automatically assume everytime that the exact opposite happens to everything he predicts. i've seen more wrong predictions than in a psychic's convention.<BR/><BR/>For Scientia to say Prescott was poor therefor RDR's must have been after this is just plain ignorant."<BR/><BR/>ROTFLMAO -- Bravo!!!! But you must admit, Scientia's ramblings on such technical things makes for a great deal of humor.<BR/><BR/>"Does he really believe the stuff he says? Does he really think people will believe this crap?"<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, he does think he is an authority on the subject, and he states with such conviction that he convinces the ranks of AMDzone that he is some sort of God. So yes, many believe his antics.<BR/><BR/>"I understand some mistakes as he doesn't work in the area but some of the things he says are just so, well frankly, stupid that he must know they are not right?" <BR/><BR/>I don't think he does (know his rubbish is not right).... it is kinda sad really.<BR/><BR/>"I read it sometimes for a laugh and one thread had Sci reasoning that the triple core was delayed because yields on the quad core were so good. then there were comments like "good point, most people would have missed that.., etc." Absolutely hilarious."<BR/><BR/>I recall seeing that too (though don't recall if it was Sci) and nearly blowing the soda I was drinking through my nose I laughed so hard.<BR/><BR/>Stone cold killer my ass! ROFL<BR/><BR/>Where is that retard abinstein now? Is he hiding under Scientia?<BR/><BR/>abinstein, how do you like getting your ass kicked?<BR/><BR/>Blabbermouth.<BR/><BR/>"how can even the Scientia's/Abinstein continue to be AMD fans and look themselves in the mirror everyday?"<BR/><BR/>fans ---> short for fanatical --> fanatical is not generally associated with logic and reason.<BR/><BR/>Fans appear rationale when things are going well (the same can be said about Intel fans too), however it is when things are not going well the tiger finally shows its stripes.<BR/><BR/>It's at that point where things become desparate and you have blogs like "K10: A Good start" (Oh this was meant to be serious!?!?) or a blog on process technology when the author has nary a clue of what Si is.<BR/><BR/>I like this blog as there are a lot of educated people who comment, nothing is taken as gospel. It would be nice to get some more AMD point of views, but given the folks I see on the other blog sites, I think they understand that they will not get away with unsubstantiated marketing and PR fluff without being challenged for facts/supporting links (which is why I suspect they don't post here).<BR/><BR/>"I think they understand that they will not get away with unsubstantiated marketing and PR fluff without being challenged for facts/supporting links (which is why I suspect they don't post here)."<BR/><BR/>Oh, yeah, plus, they WILL get eaten alive with actual working experience, facts and supporting links.<BR/><BR/>I can see that someone has done a ‘Sharikou’ on Intel’s recent financial performance. A ‘Sharikou’ is an analysis method popularised by a similarly named blogger, where a desired result is only realised by varying the point of reference ...<BR/><BR/>You are actually insulting Sharikou ...<BR/><BR/>I feel far more comfortable to post comment in Sharikou's page instead of that blogger. <BR/><BR/>Sharikou style is that intel is evil and amd is good, plain and simple.<BR/><BR/>That blogger style, is complicated to describe clearly. Basically is being a fanboi but not admitting it, 99% i'm right and you are wrong style and using the other 1% to prove himself not being biased or being reasonable, etc. <BR/><BR/>i'm not able to describe him fully. But comparing him to Sharikou is an insult to Sharikou in some sense.<BR/><BR/>So what do we end up with? A classic case of Scientia trying to sell Intel's advantage as an issue and an indicator of problems.<BR/><BR/>Jeff Tom must have been crying while doing that article.<BR/><BR/>Aren't blogs supposed to be pulled completely out of the air and unsupported?!?<BR/><BR/>Kind of funny how he needs to come to this blog to get the facts and corrections... perhaps if he didn't censor folks, he wouldn't be such a laughing stock and get some real post at his blog!<BR/><BR/>It would also help if he left the real technical analysis to folks who actually have some knowledge and background! Does he even know what Idsat is? (and a tip for folks - Idlin is actually becoming a more important, lesser known and reported metric - Sparks go work on this after you're done with Igate!). I luagh at the superior intellect....said in my best Ricardo Monteblan voice!<BR/><BR/>Don't drink and blog! (But drinking and commenting is OK, at least in my case!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-41733694821071419012008-02-14T11:53:00.000+00:002008-02-14T11:53:00.000+00:00http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1202940080671.html...http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1202940080671.html<BR/><BR/>NVIDIA Reports Record Results for Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2008<BR/><BR/>Company Achieves Record Quarterly Revenue and Record Annual Revenue; Annual Net Income Increases 78 Percent Year-Over-Year<BR/>For further information, contact:<BR/><BR/>Michael Hara Calisa Cole<BR/>Investor Relations Corporate Communications<BR/>NVIDIA Corporation NVIDIA Corporation<BR/>(408) 486-2511 (408) 486-6263<BR/>mhara@nvidia.com ccole@nvidia.com<BR/><BR/>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<BR/><BR/>SANTA CLARA, CA—FEBRUARY 13, 2008— NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA), the world leader in visual computing technologies, today reported financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 and the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008.<BR/><BR/>For the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, revenue increased to a record $1.20 billion, compared to $878.9 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007, an increase of 37 percent. Net income computed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 was $257.0 million, or $0.42 per diluted share, compared to net income of $163.5 million, or $0.27 per diluted share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007, a net income increase of 57 percent.<BR/><BR/>Non-GAAP net income for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, which excludes stock-based compensation charges, a charge for in-process research and development related to an acquisition closed during the quarter, and the associated tax impact, was $292.6 million, or $0.49 per diluted share.<BR/><BR/>Annual revenue for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008 was a record $4.10 billion, compared to revenue of $3.07 billion for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2007, an increase of 34 percent. GAAP net income for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008 was $797.6 million, or $1.31 per diluted share, compared to GAAP net income of $448.8 million, or $0.76 per diluted share, for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2007, a net income increase of 78 percent.<BR/><BR/>Non-GAAP net income for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008, which excludes stock-based compensation charges, a charge for in-process research and development related to an acquisition closed during the year, and the associated tax impact, was $919.3 million, or $1.56 per diluted share.<BR/><BR/>"Fiscal 2008 was another outstanding and record year for us. Strong demand for GPUs in all market segments drove our growth. Relative to Q4 one year ago, our discrete GPU business grew 80%. Our growth reflects the ever-increasing use of rich graphics in applications from Google Earth to Apple iTunes to online virtual worlds," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of NVIDIA.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Huang continued: "This is the era of visual computing. The richness of the graphics is increasingly central to our computing experience. And at the core of that experience is the GPU, the processor that defines the modern PC."<BR/><BR/>Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2008, and Recent Highlights:<BR/><BR/>* Fourth Quarter revenue grew 37 percent year-over-year to a record $1.20 billion.<BR/>* Annual revenue increased 34 percent year-over-year to a record $4.10 billion.<BR/>* GAAP annual net income increased 78 percent year-over-year to a record $797.6 million.<BR/>* GAAP annual gross margin reached a Company high of 45.6 percent, a year-over-year increase of 320 basis points.<BR/>* We launched multiple industry-defining products and initiatives:<BR/>o GeForce® 8800 graphics processing family, including the highly-acclaimed 8800GT < li>GeForce 7000 mGPU – the first single-chip motherboard GPU for Intel systems<BR/>o Tesla ™ computing system – the high performance computing industry's first C-programmable GPU<BR/>o Hybrid SLI® technology – the first hybrid technology for PC platforms<BR/>o CUDA™ technology – the first C-compiler for the GPU<BR/>o PureVideo® HD technology – the first video decode and post processing technology for Blu-ray and HD DVD<BR/>* NVIDIA® held #1 segment share in desktop and notebook GPU (Mercury Research PC Graphics 2008 Market Strategy and Forecast Report).<BR/>* NVIDIA held #1 segment share in workstation solutions (Jon Peddie Research Q3'07 Workstations and Professional Graphics Report).<BR/>* NVIDIA was named Most Respected Public Company by members of the Fabless Semiconductor Association for the second consecutive year.<BR/>* NVIDIA was named Forbes Company of the Year.<BR/>* We acquired Mental Images, the industry's leading photorealistic rendering technology provider. Mental Image's Mental Ray is the most pervasive ray tracing renderer in industry.<BR/>* In February, we announced and completed the acquisition of AGEIA, the industry leader in gaming physics technology.<BR/><BR/>Conference Call and Web Cast Information<BR/>NVIDIA will conduct a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss its fourth quarter fiscal 2008 financial results and current financial prospects today at 2:00 P.M. Pacific Time (5:00 P.M. Eastern Time). To listen to the call, please dial 212-231-2901; no password is required. A live Web cast (listen-only mode) of the conference call will be held at the NVIDIA investor relations Web site www.nvidia.com/investor and at www.streetevents.com. The Web cast will be recorded and available for replay until the Company's conference call to discuss its financial results for its first quarter fiscal 2009.<BR/><BR/>Non-GAAP Measures<BR/>To supplement the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income presented in accordance with GAAP, we use non-GAAP measures of certain components of financial performance. These non-GAAP measures include non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP net income, and non-GAAP diluted net income per share. In order for our investors to be better able to compare our current results with those of previous periods, we have shown a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures. These reconciliations adjust the related GAAP financial measures to exclude stock-based compensation, patent license fees for past usage, in-process research & development charges related to acquisitions, a non-recurring credit associated with the net cumulative impact of estimating forfeitures as a result of the adoption of SFAS 123R, and the associated tax impact, where applicable. We believe the presentation of our non-GAAP financial measures enhances the user's overall understanding of our historical financial performance. The presentation of our non-GAAP financial measures is not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for our financial results prepared in accordance with GAAP, and our non-GAAP measures may be different from non-GAAP measures used by other companies.<BR/><BR/>About NVIDIA<BR/>NVIDIA is the world leader in visual computing technologies and the inventor of the GPU, a high-performance processor which generates breathtaking, interactive graphics on workstations, personal computers, game consoles, and mobile devices. NVIDIA serves the entertainment and consumer market with its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization market with its Quadro® products, and the high-performance computing market with its Tesla products. NVIDIA is headquartered in Santa Clara, Calif. and has offices throughout Asia, Europe, and the Americas. For more information, visit www.nvidia.com.<BR/><BR/>Certain statements in this release including, but not limited to, statements as to: the use and importance of graphics; visual computing; and the role of the GPU are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause results to be materially different than expectations. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include: slower than anticipated adoption of new technologies or development of a market; the impact of competition and competitive products; technological advances; the development of more effective or efficient GPUs or CPUs; changes in consumer preferences or product uses; incompatibility of technologies; changes in industry standards; as well as other factors detailed from time to time in the reports NVIDIA files with the Securities and Exchange Commission including its Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2007. Copies of reports filed with the SEC are posted on our website and are available from NVIDIA without charge. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and speak only as of the date hereof, and, except as required by law, NVIDIA disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect future events or circumstances.<BR/><BR/>###<BR/><BR/>Copyright® 2008 NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved. All company and/or product names may be trade names, trademarks and/or registered trademarks of the respective owners with which they are associated. Features, pricing, availability, and specifications are subject to change without notice.<BR/><BR/>Note to editors: If you are interested in viewing additional information on NVIDIA, please visit the NVIDIA Press Room at http://www.nvidia.com/page/press_room.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Intel and Nvidia report record profits and record revenues while AMD reports RECORD LOSSES.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-66351650104004982602008-02-14T11:51:00.000+00:002008-02-14T11:51:00.000+00:00http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1202940080671.html...http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1202940080671.html<BR/><BR/><I>NVIDIA Reports Record Results for Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2008<BR/><BR/>Company Achieves Record Quarterly Revenue and Record Annual Revenue; Annual Net Income Increases 78 Percent Year-Over-Year<BR/>For further information, contact:<BR/><BR/>Michael Hara Calisa Cole<BR/>Investor Relations Corporate Communications<BR/>NVIDIA Corporation NVIDIA Corporation<BR/>(408) 486-2511 (408) 486-6263<BR/>mhara@nvidia.com ccole@nvidia.com<BR/><BR/>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<BR/><BR/>SANTA CLARA, CA—FEBRUARY 13, 2008— NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA), the world leader in visual computing technologies, today reported financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 and the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008.<BR/><BR/>For the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, revenue increased to a record $1.20 billion, compared to $878.9 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007, an increase of 37 percent. Net income computed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 was $257.0 million, or $0.42 per diluted share, compared to net income of $163.5 million, or $0.27 per diluted share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007, a net income increase of 57 percent.<BR/><BR/>Non-GAAP net income for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, which excludes stock-based compensation charges, a charge for in-process research and development related to an acquisition closed during the quarter, and the associated tax impact, was $292.6 million, or $0.49 per diluted share.<BR/><BR/>Annual revenue for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008 was a record $4.10 billion, compared to revenue of $3.07 billion for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2007, an increase of 34 percent. GAAP net income for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008 was $797.6 million, or $1.31 per diluted share, compared to GAAP net income of $448.8 million, or $0.76 per diluted share, for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2007, a net income increase of 78 percent.<BR/><BR/>Non-GAAP net income for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2008, which excludes stock-based compensation charges, a charge for in-process research and development related to an acquisition closed during the year, and the associated tax impact, was $919.3 million, or $1.56 per diluted share.<BR/><BR/>"Fiscal 2008 was another outstanding and record year for us. Strong demand for GPUs in all market segments drove our growth. Relative to Q4 one year ago, our discrete GPU business grew 80%. Our growth reflects the ever-increasing use of rich graphics in applications from Google Earth to Apple iTunes to online virtual worlds," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of NVIDIA.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Huang continued: "This is the era of visual computing. The richness of the graphics is increasingly central to our computing experience. And at the core of that experience is the GPU, the processor that defines the modern PC."<BR/><BR/>Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2008, and Recent Highlights:<BR/><BR/> * Fourth Quarter revenue grew 37 percent year-over-year to a record $1.20 billion.<BR/> * Annual revenue increased 34 percent year-over-year to a record $4.10 billion.<BR/> * GAAP annual net income increased 78 percent year-over-year to a record $797.6 million.<BR/> * GAAP annual gross margin reached a Company high of 45.6 percent, a year-over-year increase of 320 basis points.<BR/> * We launched multiple industry-defining products and initiatives:<BR/> o GeForce® 8800 graphics processing family, including the highly-acclaimed 8800GT < li>GeForce 7000 mGPU – the first single-chip motherboard GPU for Intel systems<BR/> o Tesla ™ computing system – the high performance computing industry's first C-programmable GPU<BR/> o Hybrid SLI® technology – the first hybrid technology for PC platforms<BR/> o CUDA™ technology – the first C-compiler for the GPU<BR/> o PureVideo® HD technology – the first video decode and post processing technology for Blu-ray and HD DVD <BR/> * NVIDIA® held #1 segment share in desktop and notebook GPU (Mercury Research PC Graphics 2008 Market Strategy and Forecast Report).<BR/> * NVIDIA held #1 segment share in workstation solutions (Jon Peddie Research Q3'07 Workstations and Professional Graphics Report).<BR/> * NVIDIA was named Most Respected Public Company by members of the Fabless Semiconductor Association for the second consecutive year.<BR/> * NVIDIA was named Forbes Company of the Year.<BR/> * We acquired Mental Images, the industry's leading photorealistic rendering technology provider. Mental Image's Mental Ray is the most pervasive ray tracing renderer in industry.<BR/> * In February, we announced and completed the acquisition of AGEIA, the industry leader in gaming physics technology. <BR/><BR/>Conference Call and Web Cast Information<BR/>NVIDIA will conduct a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss its fourth quarter fiscal 2008 financial results and current financial prospects today at 2:00 P.M. Pacific Time (5:00 P.M. Eastern Time). To listen to the call, please dial 212-231-2901; no password is required. A live Web cast (listen-only mode) of the conference call will be held at the NVIDIA investor relations Web site www.nvidia.com/investor and at www.streetevents.com. The Web cast will be recorded and available for replay until the Company's conference call to discuss its financial results for its first quarter fiscal 2009.<BR/><BR/>Non-GAAP Measures<BR/>To supplement the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income presented in accordance with GAAP, we use non-GAAP measures of certain components of financial performance. These non-GAAP measures include non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP net income, and non-GAAP diluted net income per share. In order for our investors to be better able to compare our current results with those of previous periods, we have shown a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures. These reconciliations adjust the related GAAP financial measures to exclude stock-based compensation, patent license fees for past usage, in-process research & development charges related to acquisitions, a non-recurring credit associated with the net cumulative impact of estimating forfeitures as a result of the adoption of SFAS 123R, and the associated tax impact, where applicable. We believe the presentation of our non-GAAP financial measures enhances the user's overall understanding of our historical financial performance. The presentation of our non-GAAP financial measures is not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for our financial results prepared in accordance with GAAP, and our non-GAAP measures may be different from non-GAAP measures used by other companies.<BR/><BR/>About NVIDIA<BR/>NVIDIA is the world leader in visual computing technologies and the inventor of the GPU, a high-performance processor which generates breathtaking, interactive graphics on workstations, personal computers, game consoles, and mobile devices. NVIDIA serves the entertainment and consumer market with its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization market with its Quadro® products, and the high-performance computing market with its Tesla products. NVIDIA is headquartered in Santa Clara, Calif. and has offices throughout Asia, Europe, and the Americas. For more information, visit www.nvidia.com.<BR/><BR/>Certain statements in this release including, but not limited to, statements as to: the use and importance of graphics; visual computing; and the role of the GPU are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause results to be materially different than expectations. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include: slower than anticipated adoption of new technologies or development of a market; the impact of competition and competitive products; technological advances; the development of more effective or efficient GPUs or CPUs; changes in consumer preferences or product uses; incompatibility of technologies; changes in industry standards; as well as other factors detailed from time to time in the reports NVIDIA files with the Securities and Exchange Commission including its Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2007. Copies of reports filed with the SEC are posted on our website and are available from NVIDIA without charge. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and speak only as of the date hereof, and, except as required by law, NVIDIA disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect future events or circumstances.<BR/><BR/>###<BR/><BR/>Copyright® 2008 NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved. All company and/or product names may be trade names, trademarks and/or registered trademarks of the respective owners with which they are associated. Features, pricing, availability, and specifications are subject to change without notice.<BR/><BR/>Note to editors: If you are interested in viewing additional information on NVIDIA, please visit the NVIDIA Press Room at http://www.nvidia.com/page/press_room.html<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Intel and Nvidia report record profits and record revenues while AMD reports RECORD LOSSES.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-87117993399873543582008-02-13T21:08:00.000+00:002008-02-13T21:08:00.000+00:00"had to laugh when I read this. The posters over a..."had to laugh when I read this. The posters over at roborat's blog insist almost everyday that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I just make up things to try to make AMD sound better."<BR/><BR/>Well at least we know where Dementia goes for some real commentary... as always he has twisted the #'s conveniently to make a simple argument...<BR/><BR/>"On the other hand there were Intel fans that jumped on the 400K number as "proof" that AMD was doing badly. So, I stated that Intel probably moved a similar ratio of 45nm chips which would be about 1.2 million."<BR/><BR/>Well that makes sense giving the relative market shares... the problem... timeframes DON'T MATCH UP!<BR/><BR/>AMD released K10 in Sept at least on paper, though we certainly will not call it a paper launch, because we know for a fact AMD doesn't do these. And when did Intel launch 45nm? mid-Nov. So they shipped over a million chips in just under 3 months. AMD managed to ship ~400K chips in just under 5 months.<BR/><BR/>AMD did this on a process that was mature, ramped, and at mature yields. Intel is doing this on a brand new process. AMD simply had to change masks in a lithography tool... Intel had to install new equipment... so I guess his comparisons are reasonable.<BR/><BR/>And just curious - he claims the low availability of chips is due to poor 45nm yields...if he really believes this what does it say about 65nm process?<BR/><BR/>I guess if you cherrypick data and take the context out of things you can seem rather reasonable to readers who take what you say as gospel and don't question the context of your statements!<BR/><BR/>Of course this is the readership that talks about the 0.45nm and 0.65nm processes! So 'nuff said.<BR/><BR/>Oh and by the way the source who talked to Fudzilla never said WHEN Intel passed the 1mil shipment mark or how much over it they are... but let's just assume it means now and 1,000,001 as that is easier to plug into Scientia's pre-determined conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-73005381356645047952008-02-11T10:13:00.000+00:002008-02-11T10:13:00.000+00:00Well Gents, I've been calling Charlie D. out on an...Well Gents, I've been calling Charlie D. out on another AMD pimping predictions. Enjoy!<BR/><BR/><BR/>" DELL DEAL WITH THE DEVIL<BR/><BR/>Charlie, can’t you remember when you said AMD was going to pound INTC into the pavement with these BULLSHIT E5XX class machines? Man, we even did the calculations on companies buying these at bulk, thereby, saving millions! <BR/><BR/>BLAAAA! Wrong again! I said it then, I’ll say it now, not even some poor pent up, nine to fiver, locked up in some isolated cubicle (I recall you sitting in one, commenting how terrible they were!) wants to live with some hideous, grey, under pumped, dog of e-machine. <BR/><BR/>What you failed to realize back then is corporations need to spend additional money due to Capital Improvement, Tax considerations, further, they just might really care about the people that work for them. (Remember your report when you were sitting your ugly ass in one of Intel’s cubicles last year?) <BR/><BR/>So much for the brilliant sweetheart AMD/DELL deal that made DELL a litigation non combatant, made AMD screwed the channel, and ultimately, killed AMD’s margins. <BR/><BR/>Now they’re in the RETAIL GHETTO? That’s the crap they’re selling the American public because they CAN’T sell it to Corporate America, or the rest of the “on line” world. <BR/><BR/><BR/>DO YOU GET IT, NOW? <BR/><BR/>SPARKS" <BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/<BR/>2008/02/08/dell-dumps-amd<BR/><BR/>SPARKSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-84878470277558587762008-02-10T22:24:00.000+00:002008-02-10T22:24:00.000+00:00"But they could let those go for the dual core one..."But they could let those go for the dual core ones. Unless they have many?"<BR/><BR/>The Intel quad core is MCM - meaning 2 dual core die in same package... so it is not a matter of downbinning quad core into dual cores. While this approach is mocked as a bandaid or an inelegant approach it allows you to choose between dualcore/quadcore mix AFTER a wafer is processed (this is a 3-4 month benefit). When you have native quad core - you have to decide from day 1 as the mask between dual and quad cores are different - this makes it significantly harder to get the mix right as marketing forecasts 4-6 months out can be seriously off.<BR/><BR/>This is yet another example of the importance of considering the business, strategic and manufacturing aspects of a solution and not just the pure technology aspect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-13701594611959296192008-02-10T20:42:00.000+00:002008-02-10T20:42:00.000+00:00"Intentionally disabling any fully functional beau..."Intentionally disabling any fully functional beauties should be a capital offense"<BR/><BR/>Why didn't they under clock them?<BR/>It's more likely a yield issue like one of the previous posters said. <BR/>But they could let those go for the dual core ones. Unless they have many?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-55180105690431033222008-02-10T11:10:00.000+00:002008-02-10T11:10:00.000+00:00新年快乐!新年快乐!pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388854963223201475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-65056725537941353732008-02-10T00:41:00.000+00:002008-02-10T00:41:00.000+00:00Intentionally disabling any fully functional beaut...Intentionally disabling any fully functional beauties should be a capital offense, punishable by rereading all AMD’s PR and Power Point releases for entire 2007 calendar year, sifting through AMD’s reject bins for marginally running units, and finally, a forced purchase of AMD stock. (In lieu of a monetary fine)<BR/><BR/>Talk about being competitive with AMD’s low end, Ecch! Let it live in the basement like some hideous bastard cousin, stoking the low end fires, seldom discussed, rarely seen, but a necessary evil, never the less. <BR/><BR/>Even Charlie D. at the INQ is calling DELL’s recent move, “relegating them to the retail GHETTO!”<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news<BR/>/2008/02/08/dell-dumps-amd<BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/>SPARKSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-14557877173408893712008-02-09T22:51:00.000+00:002008-02-09T22:51:00.000+00:001/2 the cache is disabled - this can be intentiona...<I>1/2 the cache is disabled - this can be intentional or unintentional (defect). </I><BR/><BR/>Precisely!<BR/><BR/>In fact, if everyone doesn't remember, when Core 2 was released in 2006, the first "Allendale's" were in fact Cache disabled "Conroes". It wasn't for a while that an actual "Allendale" mask set was put into production.Orthogonalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03773729604928131840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-18022602937097426392008-02-09T22:31:00.000+00:002008-02-09T22:31:00.000+00:00One clarificationon intentional vs unintentional -...One clarificationon intentional vs unintentional - the cache still has to be 'fused' in the case of a defect. It is a case of intentionally disabling 3MB of working cache vs disabling a non-functional portion of the cache (in case where you have a manufacturing defect)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-33287666860348063442008-02-09T22:29:00.000+00:002008-02-09T22:29:00.000+00:00"Something is wrong on the reported die size of th..."Something is wrong on the reported die size of the Q9300. With 3MB L2 instead of 6MB how can they be the same (107sq.mm)?"<BR/><BR/>1/2 the cache is disabled - this can be intentional or unintentional (defect). This allow better yields (in the case where some of the cache may have a defect) and also is much easier in manufacturing as you don't have another set of masks, metrology recipes, product type... Also it provides some flexibility with planning as cache can be disabled if for example there is a shortage on the 3MB parts or an excess in 6MB parts.<BR/><BR/>Intel has done this in the past, at some point they may re-layout the chip with a smaller cache (to improve die size), but at this stage that is not worth the effort (both financially and engineering resource-wise).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-37780385621131215222008-02-09T21:05:00.000+00:002008-02-09T21:05:00.000+00:00Did anyone read the Xbitlabs review of the Q9300?h...Did anyone read the Xbitlabs review of the Q9300?<BR/><BR/>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html<BR/><BR/>Something is wrong on the reported die size of the Q9300. With 3MB L2 instead of 6MB how can they be the same (107sq.mm)?<BR/><BR/>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_2.html<BR/>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_2.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-13763052052437861872008-02-08T23:43:00.000+00:002008-02-08T23:43:00.000+00:00Guru, there I was today, Hi-Pressing 4 sets 350 KC...Guru, there I was today, Hi-Pressing 4 sets 350 KCMIL, 3P, 277-480V in a 24x24 cutout box, I could help but think of your “pathway” comment. <BR/><BR/>“bit of code cycles through it gets nailed on the 3rd core, or some specific pathway” <BR/><BR/>In my world each set MUST be run together with its respective conductor, A, B, C …A, B, C, etc. If you were to run all the A’s or B’s or C’s together, in parallel, as little as ten feet, under load, hysteresis, and/or inductive reactance would heat the galvanized conduit enough to cause insulation failure, eventually.<BR/><BR/>The thought occurred to me with the thousands of interconnects how on Gods earth do they find these things on a microscopic level. Hell, all I would do is tell an apprentice to go sit his ass on that raceway, and then watch his reaction. (just kidding) Where would an architect/process engineer begin to look? Can they run simulations to isolate the specific area? It seems we’re talking about a needle in a haystack. Why can’t they examine the sum of the differences between the cores and then target those areas for study? <BR/><BR/>Then it occurred to me, maybe they have. Perhaps, the issue isn’t with the process or the “3rd Core”. Perhaps the integration of the IMC limiting ALL 4 cores coming up to speed together. We spoke of these issues months ago, as I recall. We spoke of timing issues. Therefore, if this case then perhaps it’s a more fundamental problem, inherent with the foundation of the design. Maybe one core always gets left behind. Perhaps the IMC, in its present incarnation will never allow all four cores to scale harmoniously. Is this possible or am I reaching for the wrong phase?<BR/><BR/>SPARKSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-49425488151537501132008-02-08T20:09:00.000+00:002008-02-08T20:09:00.000+00:00Man the Dell news made the CNBC business channel! ...Man the Dell news made the CNBC business channel! Apparently they will sell on phone and retail, but no more online sales. The analysis was this is a huge blow as the majority of Dell's volume remains online sales.<BR/><BR/>It'll be interesting to see AMD's PR response... I hear customers are demanding they not be able to order computers online and AMD is just being customer centric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-3034171747926984362008-02-08T20:05:00.000+00:002008-02-08T20:05:00.000+00:00Fudzilla is saying Intel has shipped over a millio...Fudzilla is saying Intel has shipped over a million 45nm (recall it launched ~3months ago).<BR/><BR/>If Intel is having 45nm yield problems, as some informed bloggers have indicated, and AMD managed to ship ~400K quad cores in the 5 months from the Barcy launch, what does that say about AMD's 65nm?<BR/><BR/>I'm just so confused, isn't Newegg product availability a good indicator of process yield! There are no other factors that impact product availability, are there? (lke demand, customer priority, segment ramp focus)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-21669435820239872372008-02-08T17:14:00.000+00:002008-02-08T17:14:00.000+00:00AnonymousDell no longer selling AMD-based computer...<B>Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/><I>Dell no longer selling AMD-based computers online anymore (just desktop?).</I><BR/><BR/>So much for the foolish predictions out there of AMD increasing market share in 2008. Losing Dell on-line (vast majority of Dell's business) means a virtually overnight substantial loss for AMD in desktop & mobile share.Axelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15126742407361053721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-36980531567004561162008-02-08T09:46:00.000+00:002008-02-08T09:46:00.000+00:00Good News or bad news?http://search.dell.com/resul...Good News or bad news?<BR/><BR/>http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?s=gen&c=us&l=en&cs=&k=AMD&cat=all&x=0&am<BR/><BR/>Dell no longer selling AMD-based computers online anymore (just desktop?).<BR/><BR/>As I credit 'cracking' Dell as one of the accelerators for AMD's problems (lower prices and tying up capacity), it is unclear if this is good news or bad news for AMD.<BR/><BR/>Putting aside the negative PR for a second, I think this may actually be a good thing for AMD. This will allow them to re-focus on the channel (which is probably better margin then Dell anyway)<BR/><BR/>If I'm Intel Dell is getting the bottom bin chips when they are available with a note saying:<BR/><BR/>'Isn't qualification of a second source a goos thing for everyone? By the way your price for chips is going is going up! AMD tells us that customers are demanding low power chips instead of higher performance so please feel free to purchase chips from our competitor as needed!'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-16878763290211082952008-02-08T05:30:00.000+00:002008-02-08T05:30:00.000+00:00I think it's impossible to say what is the root ca...I think it's impossible to say what is the root cause of the issue (assuming it is Core3).<BR/><BR/>Yes all cores are 'identical' but they're not - the interconnects are not the same as you have right 'handed/left' handed and other subtle differences. I'm not saying this is the cause but the cores are not EXACTLY the same with respect to interconnect, runs to the cache, etc...<BR/><BR/>It could be a mask issue - either a specific defect on the mask - I highly doubt with the low columes AMD is running that these lots are moving through more than 1 or 2 production tools for some of the steps. It could be an error in the mask making (OPC or design).<BR/><BR/>It could be an actual design issue. perhaps as some bit of code cycles through it gets nailed on the 3rd core, or some specific pathway.<BR/><BR/>Noone (other than AMD) has enough info to say. For folks to flat out rule out a design issue or a process issue or a manufacturing issue is just not possible with the info available.<BR/><BR/>And in all likelihood we will never know, unless the issue gets fixed on the same stepping. If the stepping is changed to fix this, then we probably will never know what the cause of the issue was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-10967807293044422672008-02-07T23:27:00.000+00:002008-02-07T23:27:00.000+00:00“It's interesting to note that the core 3 bug is a...“It's interesting to note that the core 3 bug is a direct result of AMD choosing to go with a monolithic quad core design.”<BR/><BR/>I read this, too, and it had me wondering about the process/architecture relationship.<BR/><BR/>The way I’m reading this, it sounds as if it is third core specific. I was under the assumption that all four cores were identical and that the ‘bad’ or slower core was something that randomly affected one quadrant or another due to variances in the process.<BR/><BR/> But, when they say “core 3 bug” it sound as if the process or the design was flawed in one specific area common to all Pheromones, hence, the third core. How is this possible? Is it a design or process problem that affects that core? Is it a bad mask and they don't know where to look? Why can’t they fix that one problem area? Is that one core different that the others in some way? Honestly, I am at loss to understand the dynamics here. Am I reading this wrong?<BR/><BR/>SPARKSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-80747680687416769552008-02-07T21:02:00.000+00:002008-02-07T21:02:00.000+00:00A 2.1GHz tri-core... what's the point? Will this ...A 2.1GHz tri-core... what's the point? Will this even be competitive (meaning significantly better) with AMD's 3.0GHz K8 dual core? If not, won't it need to be priced under that? (I wonder which part has a higher margin given the die size)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, there is another reason why K8 is not clocked above 2.7GHz. It will avoid the embarrassment of their one generation old DUAL core beating a next generation TRI core! <BR/><BR/>Of course AMD needs to still sell these 2.1 tricore as they sell 2.1 quad cores.... what else you going to do with those defective die? (Though I hear AMD is at 'expected' 'mature' yields). This is yet another down the line problem of introducing new SKU's at lower bins instead of waiting and getting the bins working.<BR/><BR/>There is now a freakin 1.8GHz quad "phenom"! And before someone says well it was a stopgap and they had to do it so they could sell stuff... AMD is even migrated this to the B3 stepping! <BR/><BR/>There are 2.2, 2.3 and soon to be 2.4 GHz parts, yet no 2.0GHz? I have absolutely no data, but if I had to guess where the cliff is for the bin splits? Between 1.9 and 2.1? Also notice there are no 1.8GHz tri-cores (suggesting decent splits at 1.8?)...<BR/><BR/>I can see doing this stuff in server land, but this is the desktop market - quad comprises, what 5% of all desktops? So AMD now has 4 SKU's in Q2 and soon to add a 5th (2.6GHz) and/or 6th in H2?<BR/><BR/>Yeah that AMD business model is not broken... in a small market the goal is to have as many products as possible! Then price them in such a way as it completely pins the rest of your market segments. <BR/><BR/>"sweating donkeys" comes to mind!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-3814574032818035762008-02-07T20:45:00.000+00:002008-02-07T20:45:00.000+00:00"Ed claims AMD did it so that they can claim that ..."Ed claims AMD did it so that they can claim that the CPUs are not delayed."<BR/><BR/>As much as I rail on AMD, I think there is a more plausible explanation. Despite the fact that the TLB errata may not be that big a deal any 9X00 Phenom now has the stench of that bug. By cancelling these and making everything 9X50, it makes it a bit cleaner for consumers and AMD can say these are 'bug free' chips.<BR/><BR/>Yes it has the benefit of allowing some more creative interpretation of 'on schedule', but I think that is a secondary factor.<BR/><BR/>I hate to say 'I told you so' to all about this tri-core, 'disable the slow performing core crap' and get good clocks on the tri's - in the real world you don't see that much variance in clock on cores that are so physically close on the wafer (again except potentially at the very edge). Tri-core is simply a means of selling a quad with a NON-FUNCTIONAL core that would have lead to scrap. Or if demand is soft...AMD can intentionally disable a core to move inventory (which is good flexibility if you have a less than competitive product)<BR/><BR/>The situation on 2.6GHz availability is more brutal then i thought (I thought for sure these would be available for purchase toward the end of Q2). Keep in mind the order availability date of Q3 is not necessarily CUSTOMER order, it is OEM/channel orders.<BR/><BR/>So those AMD fans wanting a 2.6GHz for Christmas, they may still get their wish - just 2008 instead of the 2007 originally expected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-72584071509308170812008-02-07T20:17:00.000+00:002008-02-07T20:17:00.000+00:00I bet Tritanic will ship in huge volume at higher ...<I>I bet Tritanic will ship in huge volume at higher speeds than the quads and all of them will have the same core 3 disabled.</I><BR/><BR/>While it's certainly true that these cores will be able to easily overclock over their quad core counterparts, it doesn't mean AMD will be able to ship them at those higher bins in volume. You still have to take into account the very large power consumption and TDP gains as the clocks increase on Phenom. Even if they fix the manufacturing issue of core2, they still won't be able to achieve 2.8Ghz without a >140W TDP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-40965567309169746452008-02-07T18:26:00.000+00:002008-02-07T18:26:00.000+00:00It looks like the "Bad Core #3" rumor about the Ph...It looks like the "Bad Core #3" rumor about the Phenom is true. Quite a few sources confirm that they can hit 2.8 - 3.0 GHz on their Phenoms if they hold the clock speed on core #3 back.<BR/><BR/>Although this is a PR disaster, I now have more confidence in AMD's manufacturing process. It seems they CAN hit higher clocks than 2.4 GHz on 65nm when the design isn't flawed.<BR/><BR/>I bet Tritanic will ship in huge volume at higher speeds than the quads and all of them will have the same core 3 disabled.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting to note that the core 3 bug is a direct result of AMD choosing to go with a monolithic quad core design.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-84601472097717918832008-02-07T13:26:00.000+00:002008-02-07T13:26:00.000+00:00According to Ed at Overclockers, it seems that AMD...According to <A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com/tips01290/" REL="nofollow">Ed at Overclockers</A>, it seems that AMD will cancel the 9700/9900 Phenom B3 stepping processors and replace them with 'new' models. The only differences appear to be the name (9750/9950) and the availability (moved back approximately one quarter).<BR/><BR/>Ed claims AMD did it so that they can claim that the CPUs are not delayed. Whatever the reason, we may not see 2.6GHz Phenom processors until late in the year.Tonushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082528970434639776noreply@blogger.com