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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (70505)	7/29/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: Klinger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

AMD management always seems to do a fine job executing and there stock price reflects it. You could give them 10 years lead and they would still blow it.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (70505)	7/29/1999 12:00:00 PM
From: John Donahoe	Respond to of 164684

RE: Intel is going to be playing catch-up very shortly. Before, AMD was only a niche player who had to fight for the low end.. Now they've got a product that is faster than anything Intel is scheduled to release for over 9 months. The problem for AMD is not winning a Mhz race but in manufacturing. AMD can't compete with Intel's manufacturing efficiency. Intel controls the market. IMO.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (70505)	7/29/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: Paul Viapiano	Respond to of 164684

<<<INTC is being artificially supported while big players exit. The first public developer results are coming back on the AMD K7, and it apparently is performing TWICE as fast as an equivalent mhz Intel part.>>> This post shows your ignorance in full bloom. This is finally the nail in your credibility coffin. AMD will never be a pimple on INTCs butt. It is the most ridiculous excuse for a company out there, no credibility with analysts especially after this last qrtr (again, I might add)...do you think Intel would sit around on its hands while AMD comes up with a faster chip. You are truly clueless...anyone following your advice and premonitions needs to have his/her head examined. Your handle tells it all.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (70505)	7/29/1999 12:24:00 PM
From: Olu Emuleomo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>>>The term "1 1/2 years ahead of anything intel has" was used by more than one reviewer.<<<< Even if this is true, it means nothing! AMD wont be able to manufacture them. Why do you think they keep posting losses? It's not because they dont have 'hot' chips, but because Intel outproduces them. Intel has manufacturing down to a science. Trust me on this. BTW, the world needs cheap chips and not FAST chips. Besides, their respective charts tells me to buy INTC. bigcharts.com bigcharts.com --Olu E.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (70505)	7/29/1999 3:48:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Hi KeepItSimple; (* OT *) About INTC and AMD: The ongoing Rambus fiasco is also going to play out to an advantage for AMD. Intel tied themselves to an almost unmanufacturable new technology, one where the cost of memory is way too high, and this is going to open their high end products, to competition. Companies using the INTC part are going to be killing each other for the few RDRAMs available, and that is going to shift a lot of business over to AMD. I also agree that the cost is the most important thing. It is true that INTC has had higher margins on chips than their competitors, but this is not due to some manufacturing advantage, it is instead due to a market advantage. This fact can be proved if you compare the cost per mm squared for the various company's silicon, and also take into account the comparative line widths. As an example, INTC is able to sell a 0.18u 100 mm sq chip for (historically) up to 100% more than their competitors, thus the great profit margins. This is not due to their products being faster, just that they are the standard. (The Intel Inside stuff.) I'm not a market analyst type, but this advantage is something I can see easily going away. The customer really doesn't care that much who made their processor, just that the company they are buying it from is reputable. As far as AMD being unable to manufacture in volume, that is untrue. -- Carl