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: Process Boy who wrote (65638)	7/15/1999 8:39:00 PM
From: Greater Fool	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574054

>>The results. Well, bad results don't mean it was a bad business plan. Had AMD executed correctly in manufacturing in 1997 during the initial ramp, the situation might be quite a bit different. The manufacturing stumbles weren't part of the business plan. One of the real flaws I saw in AMD's strategy was to pursue the unwanted K6-3 instead of fixing the FPU or perhaps reengineering the part for higher clock speeds. But to accuse AMD of hubris is not quite right. While AMD didn't have to publicly announce the discount, the processors did have to be priced aggressively to ensure the sales volume would be ramped. If the processors hadn't been discounted, nobody would have adopted them.

To: Process Boy who wrote (65638)	7/15/1999 10:21:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

RE; "Undercutting Intel by 25% and having the hubris to believe intel wouldn't respond. Dumb." How can AMD be undercutting intc when the product that you say is priced 25 % less than intc's competing product is, in fact, not the equivalent product nor has its name recognition/ value? ted

To: Process Boy who wrote (65638)	7/15/1999 10:31:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

RE:"GF - <How so?> Easy. The results. You know, how much profit did they make? Undercutting Intel by 25% and having the hubris to believe intel wouldn't respond. Dumb"... Biggest mistake I saw with the K6 was that the FPU wasn't pipelined. Then the stricter design rules that wouldn't let it scale quite as good and yield as well as the P6 core. Jim

To: Process Boy who wrote (65638)	7/15/1999 10:44:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

PB, <Undercutting Intel by 25% and having the hubris to believe intel wouldn't respond. Dumb.> Me thinks the problems have more to do with over-committing and under-delivering and not the pricing plan per se. AMD was going around and pitching speed grades they couldn't deliver on the K6-2 and K6-3s. Intel seems to have taken AMD's pitch seriously responded with accelerated speed grade introduction and accelerated PIII launch. If AMD had been a little bit more careful about what they said, Intel probably wouldn't have responded as strongly as it did in Q1 99 (and to some extent in Q2 99). There is a lot to be said about setting and managing expectations whether the company is talking to the investors or customers. And, based on what they have been doing with K7 speed grades, I think AMD management is beginning to appreciate that a little bit late. Better late than never! Chuck