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: kash johal who wrote (65627)	7/15/1999 7:52:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574579

Kash, My fear and expectations are that by the time it is truly ramped by Q2 2000 that Intel will have leveraged them out again. And which processor will Intel use to accomplish this? Their "X-Files" CPU? Scumbria

To: kash johal who wrote (65627)	7/15/1999 10:06:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574579

Kash RE: "They need to COMPETE and be NIMBLE on their feet and OUT hustle the Intel guys." I don't know, maybe I see things a little differently. In Q2 it is clear intc when went out to gain back market share but I don't believe the reason was to crush AMD and NSM; that may have been a secondary reason but not the driving one. I don't think NSM left the business simply because they could not compete with intc. When Sanders said he did not expect to gain market share this quarter, I don't believe it was because he thought he could not out hustle intc (from what I understand he has too big an ego for that). Why could the oems apparently give AMD the finger and refuse them business in Q2, knowing full well that the K7s were coming out? Its my view that all these things happened for one major reason.....there is not enough business (at least in the low end), and that has resulted in a glut of chips. INTC did not want to be stuck with a surplus and it has been said many times on this thread, it is more costly to shut down a fab than to keep it running. NSM did not have the will to compete and is pushing for the system on a chip/ net appliance concept, hoping to open up a new market beyond pc's......in the meantime it is migrating over to its analog side where business has picked up big time and brings in a profit. For Sanders to try to increase market share in the low end means more blood, fighting over a very defined customer base. As for the oems they knew they could blow off AMD and get more than enough chips from intc Q2 and probably Q3 and Q4. I think its their attitude that AMD needs them more than they need AMD. Right now the pc/chip market is not growing very fast. There are too many chips being produced worldwide. That may change if Asia comes back and Europe keeps improving but until then there is no one to pick up the over flow from either an intc or an AMD. I think that is why AMD is not going crazy on the pricing of the K7. My understanding is that the high end is an even smaller market. No matter how nimble AMD is, no matter how fast it dances and outhustles intc, they, in my opinion, can't get more of the low end without giving the chips away and intc has shown that they are willing to lower the prices on the celeron as much as they need to, to get rid of them. AMD's hope is the high end where the ASP's are higher and where it does appear that they have outhustled intc. So long as they keep dancing the dance that has got them this far, they may be able to stay in business. But, Kash, this is one major hustle/one major dance. I don't know how they have gotten this far.....in my view, as crazy as it may sound, AMD deserves credit, not criticism. But again that is my take on things. Maybe you all saw the problems the same way I did but still think AMD should do more. I don't know, maybe you are right. But I think it is crazy making, to wring our hands over every perceived AMD misstep pointed out by the intc longs. Some of its worth noting, the rest is bull. Sorry, I am not trying to annoy .....it's just that I see things differently. ted