Another reason to go with AMD

Intel's branding faux pas?

Intel hasn't transitioned a chip brand since 1992, and Prudential
Equity Group analyst Mark Lipacis believes the playbook is a bit dusty.

In an Aug. 6 research note, Lipacis said the ramp of Intel's desktop
performance chip Core 2 Duo will be slower than expected due to brand
confusion and tight chip inventories. The biggest challenge with the
transition to Core 2 Duo (code-named Conroe) from the Pentium: Intel's
pricing of the Pentium, designed to clear inventory, is causing
customers to do double takes. Customers are asking, "Why spend $180 for
a Conroe when you can get a Pentium for $80," said Lipacis in San
Francisco.

What does it all mean? According to Lipacis, Intel's transition to make
Core 2 Duo its primary brand is fraught with risks. The big ones:

In addition to the costs associated with the introduction of the new
brand, there is a risk that the new brand will freeze sales of the
older brand or vice versa, said Lipacis.

If Intel doesn't handle inventory correctly, it faces pricing
inconsistencies, an excess supply of old chips and possibly shortages
of the new ones.

Customers may get confused. Intel typically has supported two desktop
brands: Pentium, its performance brand, and Celeron, its value brand.
Lipacis said Intel has at least three brands targeted at the desktop
market: Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 and Celeron. That's not counting Pentium
D, Pentium 4 EE (Extreme Edition), Core 2 Duo EE and Core Duo. "By
flooding the desktop PC market with so many brands, we fear that Intel
may be complicating, and thereby delaying, the buying process," said
Lipacis.

"Our own empirical observation is that there is a high correlation
between product transitions and earnings misses -- it is no wonder you
don't see many major brand transitions to the scale Intel is executing
now," said Lipacis.

eWeek, August 21, 2006
--
"Computers are likely to overtake human intelligence within the next
100 years." Stephen Hawkins

On 6 Sep 2006 00:22:58 -0700, "sillyputty" wrote:

Intel's branding faux pas?

Why is that a reason to go with AMD? It is just a reason to do some
research before you make a buying decision, as is the same with AMD
numbering conventions. AMD may have ruled the roost over the past few
years, but only an idiot would ignore the Core 2 Duo's right now.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

"sillyputty" wrote in message
oups.com...
Intel's branding faux pas?

Intel hasn't transitioned a chip brand since 1992, and
Prudential
Equity Group analyst Mark Lipacis believes the playbook is
a bit dusty.

In an Aug. 6 research note, Lipacis said the ramp of
Intel's desktop
performance chip Core 2 Duo will be slower than expected
due to brand
confusion and tight chip inventories. The biggest
challenge with the
transition to Core 2 Duo (code-named Conroe) from the
Pentium: Intel's
pricing of the Pentium, designed to clear inventory, is
causing
customers to do double takes. Customers are asking, "Why
spend $180 for
a Conroe when you can get a Pentium for $80," said Lipacis
in San
Francisco.

What does it all mean? According to Lipacis, Intel's
transition to make
Core 2 Duo its primary brand is fraught with risks. The
big ones:

In addition to the costs associated with the introduction
of the new
brand, there is a risk that the new brand will freeze
sales of the
older brand or vice versa, said Lipacis.

If Intel doesn't handle inventory correctly, it faces
pricing
inconsistencies, an excess supply of old chips and
possibly shortages
of the new ones.

Customers may get confused. Intel typically has supported
two desktop
brands: Pentium, its performance brand, and Celeron, its
value brand.
Lipacis said Intel has at least three brands targeted at
the desktop
market: Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 and Celeron. That's not
counting Pentium
D, Pentium 4 EE (Extreme Edition), Core 2 Duo EE and Core
Duo. "By
flooding the desktop PC market with so many brands, we
fear that Intel
may be complicating, and thereby delaying, the buying
process," said

Lipacis.

"Our own empirical observation is that there is a high
correlation
between product transitions and earnings misses -- it is
no wonder you
don't see many major brand transitions to the scale Intel
is executing
now," said Lipacis.

eWeek, August 21, 2006
--
"Computers are likely to overtake human intelligence
within the next
100 years." Stephen Hawkins


Looks like Intel has other problems
http://news.com.com/Intel+lowers+the...3-6112412.html

Andrew wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 00:22:58 -0700, "sillyputty" wrote:


Intel's branding faux pas?


Why is that a reason to go with AMD?

ack. attacking "the guy on top" is popular when it's against companies
like microsoft, but Intel's simply doing their best to keep the
technology moving forward while sustaining profitability. And they do
have a competitor (AMD) unlike MS. I'd like to see Intel make it
through what appears to be a bad business decision without too many scars.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:27:39 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 6 Sep 2006 00:22:58 -0700, "sillyputty" wrote:

Intel's branding faux pas?

Why is that a reason to go with AMD? It is just a reason to do some
research before you make a buying decision, as is the same with AMD
numbering conventions. AMD may have ruled the roost over the past few
years, but only an idiot would ignore the Core 2 Duo's right now.


It would have to be a shortsighted view in terms of who's
"winning" if they're not going to pay a premium for the
fastest chip made, or replace the system every two years
(which most people don't, puttign aside those who
participate in technical forums for a moment).

There are more and more reasons today to focus less on which
CPU is in a system and more about the rest of the system.
Especially because most boxes are OEM, there can be
significant differences besides which CPU is inside.

The CPU wars should be declared over, not because there is
no winner at any point in time but because there is no loser
for general purpose uses most people do.

On 6 Sep 2006 00:22:58 -0700, "sillyputty" wrote:

|Intel's branding faux pas?
|
|Intel hasn't transitioned a chip brand since 1992, and Prudential
|Equity Group analyst Mark Lipacis believes the playbook is a bit dusty.
|
|In an Aug. 6 research note, Lipacis said the ramp of Intel's desktop
|performance chip Core 2 Duo will be slower than expected due to brand
|confusion and tight chip inventories. The biggest challenge with the
|transition to Core 2 Duo (code-named Conroe) from the Pentium: Intel's
|pricing of the Pentium, designed to clear inventory, is causing
|customers to do double takes. Customers are asking, "Why spend $180 for
|a Conroe when you can get a Pentium for $80," said Lipacis in San
|Francisco.
|
|What does it all mean? According to Lipacis, Intel's transition to make
|Core 2 Duo its primary brand is fraught with risks. The big ones:
|
|In addition to the costs associated with the introduction of the new
|brand, there is a risk that the new brand will freeze sales of the
|older brand or vice versa, said Lipacis.
|
|If Intel doesn't handle inventory correctly, it faces pricing
|inconsistencies, an excess supply of old chips and possibly shortages
|of the new ones.
|
|Customers may get confused. Intel typically has supported two desktop
|brands: Pentium, its performance brand, and Celeron, its value brand.
|Lipacis said Intel has at least three brands targeted at the desktop
|market: Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 and Celeron. That's not counting Pentium
|D, Pentium 4 EE (Extreme Edition), Core 2 Duo EE and Core Duo. "By
|flooding the desktop PC market with so many brands, we fear that Intel
|may be complicating, and thereby delaying, the buying process," said
|Lipacis.
|
|"Our own empirical observation is that there is a high correlation
|between product transitions and earnings misses -- it is no wonder you
|don't see many major brand transitions to the scale Intel is executing
|now," said Lipacis.
|
|eWeek, August 21, 2006


Wow.. what a bunch of spin control. AMD is in a WORLD of hurt with the Core 2
series. Not confusing at all.. the Core 2 Duo is such a winner by a landslide it
makes all the other's including P4,Celeron,AMD a moot point. Have you seen the
specs and reviews of the Core2 extreme?!?.. that thing kicks ass! Even the 6600
is better then the AMD FX series.. pleeease.

Pluvious

Pluvious wrote:


Wow.. what a bunch of spin control. AMD is in a WORLD of hurt with the Core 2
series. Not confusing at all.. the Core 2 Duo is such a winner by a landslide it
makes all the other's including P4,Celeron,AMD a moot point. Have you seen the
specs and reviews of the Core2 extreme?!?.. that thing kicks ass! Even the 6600
is better then the AMD FX series.. pleeease.


Go cheap young man. In this case, Intel has started to become cost
competitive, and according to PC World (9/2006), the Core 2 Duo now
holds the top Worldbench 5 spec. As an Intel stockholder, I say buy
Intel now for cost and performance.

I hope AMD catches up though. Nothing makes you paranoid more than
competition. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. That was not a quote
from Andy Grove. But it should be a warning to Intel, AMD, Motorola,
etc., that technology marches to its own beat, and believe me, the bpm
is getting higher and higher.

Andrew wrote:

Why is that a reason to go with AMD? It is just a reason to do some
research before you make a buying decision, as is the same with AMD
numbering conventions. AMD may have ruled the roost over the past few
years, but only an idiot would ignore the Core 2 Duo's right now.

I'm showing my bias - guilty as charged.

However, the current thinking is AMD is better for gamers (of which I'm
one). But the bottom line is competition is good for the consumer vs.
the softopoly M$ has, as pointed out by BBB.

On 6 Sep 2006 17:03:05 -0700, "shegeek72" wrote:

However, the current thinking is AMD is better for gamers (of which I'm
one).

By anyone who hasn't looked at benchmarks for Core 2 Duo, and as such
shouldn't be trusted to make sweeping statements.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

"shegeek72" wrote in message
ups.com...
Andrew wrote:

Why is that a reason to go with AMD? It is just a reason to do some
research before you make a buying decision, as is the same with AMD
numbering conventions. AMD may have ruled the roost over the past few
years, but only an idiot would ignore the Core 2 Duo's right now.

I'm showing my bias - guilty as charged.

However, the current thinking is AMD is better for gamers (of which I'm
one). But the bottom line is competition is good for the consumer vs.
the softopoly M$ has, as pointed out by BBB.

AMD was better at gaming,but even in this they've slipped to second with the
introduction of the Core 2 Duo.But they had a good run,and pushed Intel out
of their complacency,in the end,the consumer wins.I hope they can catch up
again and keep Intel on their toes,it's a lot better for us if there's real
competition.