Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (64840)	7/12/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579398

FF <"Exactly"....Although, the gap in performance is not nearly as big as the gap in price, these are not the exact same chip, and I think you know better...or at least you should.> You skipped my next phrase, Freddy. And how convenient to repeat Intel monikers. In fact, there is no gap in performance whatsoever-you should know it, and you know about the price differential. <Also, "4 times lower"....I think you mean 1/4 the price. I hope you understand the difference.> No I don't. 1/4 the price means exactly that the price is 4 times smaller than the original price. <Mathematically, your expression makes no sense.> You must be a great american mathematician. I think you should give me a lecture on mathematics here <GG> <This is the kind of simplistic thinking that has got AMD where they are today. Read the post below and you will see..> Every market/product is different. Your little company manufactures nothing but informational noise and unnecessary service for few customers your were able to fool. Your "success" can't be a model for those who manufactures real product and has no means to cheat customers. From your other post: <AMD. They have always had decent competitive products in certain segments (not all segments).> Where did you get this ridiculous idea about "always"? The K6 was designed to run at 200MHz to compete with PPro150 and PPro-200. Nobody knew about astonishing frequency scalability of the PPro-P-II core at that time (only DEC maybe). When Intel had to accelerate the P-II to maintain monopolistic pricing strategy and got to 300MHz, the K6 has totally lost the competitiveness. K6-3 could save the situation at that time, but AMD management has had a wrong model and assumed that the smaller K-6-2 die would bring more profits. And maybe they were correct since the only selling point are MHz, and nobody agree to pay higher price for higher-performing chip but same MHz. <Instead of taking a more reasonable low key approach, which starts by growing with the industry...> In chip business the volume is everything. I'm sure you are wrong about "low key" crawling approach here.