Is the Sempron a budget line that costs more?

[kony]

Actually, isn't that what I just said? ;-)

then i agree?

 

[Paul Hopwood]

then i agree?

Funny that.. so do I. ;-)

--

 

[Tony Hill]

Probably true a while ago but their earnings from CPU operations have
been performing better than memory sales for a while now, making
significantly better profits (or lower losses) against marginally
lower revenues.

AMD's CPUs have been making profit for the past while, but not much
(at least if even remotely compare their profits to what Intel makes),
as I mentioned, hovering right around break even. If you look back
they have tended to do this a fair bit, except for a few bad quarters
when CPUs lost a lot of money. However flash has been all over the
place. Some quarters it lost money hand over fist while other times
it's made a fair bit of money. Here are the results for the past few
quarters.

Q4 '03 Q1 '04 Q2 '04
CPU revenue $581 M $571 M $554 M
CPU profit $63 M $67 M $58 M

Flash revenue $566 M $628 M $673 M
Flash profit ($3 M) $14 M $45 M

Total profit $46 M $61 M $72 M

As you can see, CPU sales have been fairly stable while flash has gone
up quite noticeably. Going back further tends to continue this trend,
though late 2002/early 2003 was a rather bad time for AMD's CPU sales
as well.

It's probably true to say the flash market is more volatile so has a
more severe effect on AMDs financial performance than the (relatively)
stable CPU market.

That's pretty much all that I was getting at.

AMD seems to be doing rather well in both markets
at the moment and reporting healthy profits as a result. Their
exposure to both markets is such that a relatively small shift in
either market can make or break the company.

Indeed, when flash sales severely tanked back in 2001 or thereabouts,
it damn near killed the company. Now they have recovered strongly and
AMD has been very well positioned to take advantage of this recovery,
passing all their competitors to become the largest flash supplier in
the world.

 

[chrisv]

Tom's Hardware points out t

Why don't you cross-post to a few more groups, you idiot?

 

[Minotaur]

kony wrote:




What if demand is greater than anticipated or greater than production?




Why? They probably aren't being made any longer. Perhaps soon
the supply of Athlon XP chips might start dwindling?

That's what I have heard, in 2005. Nothing to worry about, Sempron is
coming with 512k 2nd lvl cache shortly. IMHO Sempron is just a naming
scheme for AMD's old CPU cores, so they appear 'new'. The 3200-3800+
Semprons shall be interesting.

As for Semprons future, AMD said if demand is there they shall continue
production. Makes sence, and there is still a big market out there, esp
in developing and poor nations
or for those who don't want 64bit yet *8)

Cheer's Minotaur

 

[JK]

That's what I have heard, in 2005. Nothing to worry about, Sempron is
coming with 512k 2nd lvl cache shortly. I

I highly doubt it.

MHO Sempron is just a naming
scheme for AMD's old CPU cores,

Not the Sempron 3100+ and other upcoming Sempron chips. AMD is moving
to 90 nm, and AMD hasn't announced any plans to move the K7 to 90 nm,
so I anticipate that AMD's K7 chips will either be phased out sometime in
the future, or perhaps outsourced.

so they appear 'new'. The 3200-3800+
Semprons shall be interesting.

AMD has more K8 based Semprons on their roadmap.

As for Semprons future, AMD said if demand is there they shall continue
production. Makes sence, and there is still a big market out there, esp
in developing and poor nations
or for those who don't want 64bit yet *8)

Semprons will continue, however the question remains if K7 ones
will still be made a year from now, and if so will they all be outsourced
then.

 

[kony]

I highly doubt it.

It already has. XP3000 (model 10)
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/31993.pdf
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html

Don't know where to buy one though, but haven't looked.

 

[Bill]

How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There
could be many reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not
because the chipset won't support it. Specs for the XP cpu are
for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could be a problem with power,
timing or many other things. Now since you don't have this
board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
wasteing my time guessing?

Wes Newell, that is nothing but a bold faced get-out! OMG!

You first of all say that you reckon this stuff would work and then when
you are asked to put some facts where your mouth is, you start heavily
qualifying all the squillions of variables that you don't know or don't
have control over.

Maybe you will start trumping up that you don't know what phase the moon wa
sin when Kony tried to get it going. For my money Kony is a practical
hands-on guy and you are just some old duffer spouting a mixture of theory
and comments about how people these days don't know what they are doing.
Sure, you know your theory but you're way too negative.

The bottom line about thi sthread is that the thing didn't work and you
had reckoned you could make it work. So why don't you now answer Kony
properly? So what settings would you make to get it to work?