Maxwell,
You are perhaps right. This AMD stock has been beaten really badly. What more could it drop? (FOFF dropped from $30 all the way down to $0.) If Time Traveler were Jboyd, Time Traveler would probably hold on to it a little bit longer. Despite all that human emotions (yes, Time Traveler is still a human), Time Traveler does notice you made a few out-of-this-world assessments. Shall we go through them on at a time?
>>"K6-2-300MHz can do 1.2GFLOPs FPU versus PII-300MHz of 0.3 GFLOPs of FPU"<<
This is not entirely true. Although this is true for the MMX unit, the FPU of the P-II is still superior to K6's. Currently, only if you want to be a hero to bravely put yourself in front of the whole humanity to blast away exotic species after species of weird and very alien warrior creatures, this feature is not very useful.
>>"Cost of manufacturing of socket 7 chip is cheaper than slot 1"<<
At this moment, it is probably true, but when the volume ratio becomes 5:1 (P-II:K6), it may not be true any more. Don't we have to look into the future for investment?
>>"[Yousef] doesn't know what he is talking about"<<
Time Traveler is really shocked at that statement. Yousef has demonstrated time after time that he really knows what he is talking about. Time Traveler has not seen many serious challenges to his posts including the ones from you. We should be very luck to have him posting here. We have learnt tremendously in the past couple years.
>>"The K6-2 with integrated 256KB cache has 21.3M transistors with only 117 sq. mm in die size on 0.25um process whereas the PII on 0.25um has 7.5M transistors with die size 131sq. mm"<<
Time Traveler did a very primitive error correction to the above message of yours. Do you mean K6-3? Let's assume you do. Don't you think you are talking about a vaporware? Why don't you compare this K6-3 with comparable Intel product in the future?
>>"Intel is more conservative in their design because they want their chips to be MORE MANUFACTURABLE. This in turns lose out on the competitive advantage which results in a LARGE DIE SIZE."<<
Why does Intel's conservative approach lose out? We are talking about billions and billions of dollars at stake, at least for Intel. Speaking billions and billions, let's have a moment of silence of respect for the late astronomer, Carl Sagan.
>>"Digital has better IC design"<<
Not quite, DEC does not have a better IC design. Alpha is a younger generation of CPU that does not have to be painfully backwards compatible to the older ones. Naturally, the system architect of Alpha can do so exploring the most efficient way. Intel has to design a CPU that is almost as powerful as the Alpha given the same generation and still has to worry about backwards compatibility because of market demand. In Time Traveler's humble opinion, Intel and AMD x86 designers had a tougher job than the Alpha designers.
>>"AMD gambled on a complicated process to get the competitive advantage. The gamble so far has really paid off. Not only did they mastered the local interconnect, bumps, and 5 metal layers they get great yield."<<
No, AMD has not achieved great yields. The tell-tale sign is the more units produced the more losses face AMD. Ever since AMD introduced K6, quarter after quarter, AMD has been shipping more and more K6 and losing more and more money. Is this not true?
>>"The reason their [AMD's] fixed cost is so high is that they are building Fab30"<<
Intel has been building fabs, too. How do you explain it is not affecting Intel as much as AMD does?
>>"Now AMD has a whole line of products come down the pipeline such as K6-3 and K7"<<
Have you checked what Intel has in their pipeline? The history of Intel dominating over AMD has repeated itself year after year! Haven't you noticed it?
Time Traveler
Ps. Are you holding on to your Intel shares which you wisely obtained at $72-$73 range. If and only if you snapped out that afternoon siesta, you could have bought them at $66-$67 instead.
|
