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: Charles R who wrote (72145)	9/17/1999 7:27:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1572713

<That was a pretty nice hedged statment! But, let me ask you this - is it a professional opinion or is it based on Paul's comments about problems at Dresden?> No, it's my own opinion. I do not see Cu being worth the risk at .18. I have posted many times on this subject. <. There may be a positive upside here! So, the alternative way to look at this situation, if PB is working for AMD could be: Cu at .18 provides a nice performance boost, IMO, and is a bright prospect once AMD overcomes production challenges. Sorry Al fans. ;-)> I believe that AMD has a better chance of overcoming production challenges than realizing outstanding performance gains due to Cu at .18. This may take some ferreting out, as AMD seems to be confusing process generation parameters. I guess you could look at it as gaining experience for .13. However, I strongly disagree with the approach. Purely my opinion. PB