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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (78314)	11/2/1999 4:35:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1571040

RE:"It amazes me so much to see how this dual standard is pretty much the norm here on the AMD thread. Like it's a fact of life that Intel must be judged on higher standards than AMD. Now a dual standard is perfectly acceptable if AMD only aimed to become a niche provider. But as we all know, thanks to good 'ole Jerry Sanders, AMD's continuing mission is to catch up to or surpass Intel in every aspect (performance, production, marketing, investment return, etc.). So if AMD is aiming to become the next 800 lb. gorilla, why judge it on the standards of a 25 lb. monkey?"... --- AMDs standard was never acceptable. Not launches, not earnings, not stock price. Intel set the standard. They filled the channels before launch, they had the fastest processors and the best production by far. NOW, Intel has dropped down below it's standard and AMD has raised theirs. There is still no comparison, yet...but Intel has shown it's vulnerable. Jim

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (78314)	11/2/1999 4:58:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571040

RE <<<It amazes me so much to see how this dual standard is pretty much the norm here on the AMD thread. Like it's a fact of life that Intel must be judged on higher standards than AMD.>>> Ten, it amazes me that you would say that. Why do you think there are the different S&P and Russell indexes? On what are they predicated? Size....size does matter! And they do it this way because it is the only rational and fair way to distinguish between firms with varying levels of revenue. What burns my butt is that you all spend the entire day comparing yourselves to AMD rather than your true equals, the rest of the nifty 50 like Cisco. And why is that? Intc always coming out looking better statistically against AMD. And so you are reassured that your investment prowess is intact. Its another form of da nile because compared to some of the other nifty 50, intc may not look so good. RE <<Now a dual standard is perfectly acceptable if AMD only aimed to become a niche provider. But as we all know, thanks to good 'ole Jerry Sanders, AMD's continuing mission is to catch up to or surpass Intel in every aspect (performance, production, marketing, investment return, etc.).>>> I have yet to hear sanders say that AMD is the next intc. He has said he wants to be a competitor and so does Via....so what. You don't put them in the same league. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (78314)	11/2/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571040

Tench Re <<It amazes me so much to see how this dual standard is pretty much the norm here on the AMD thread>> WHAT? Are you aware of the market cap each company is getting from the street? How many times revenues INTC is selling for? That is as bad as people holding DELL saying it is still better than CPQ. If AMD is at the same standard of INTC it would hundreds of Dollars. As an investor I am shocked you say this. Mani

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (78314)	11/2/1999 7:26:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571040

Re: "But as we all know, thanks to good 'ole Jerry Sanders, AMD's continuing mission is to catch up to or surpass Intel in every aspect (performance, production, marketing, investment return, etc.). So if AMD is aiming to become the next 800 lb. gorilla, why judge it on the standards of a 25 lb. monkey?" Ten, that may be Jerry's goal for AMD, but I certainly don't think it's a realistic one. Intel will always be around, and always be a competitor, and will probably always have the bulk of the x86 market. That doesn't mean that there's no place for AMD, however, which is what a lot of Intel people seem to believe. I think that AMD can be very profitable with 25% of the market and products competitive with Intel at the high end. I think that if AMD achieves this, we'll make quite a bit of money on our AMD investments. Personally, I think Intel is a very good company, although right now they're getting a bit distracted from their core businesses. The stock performance over the last year has reflected this and has been less than spectacular. The fact that AMD is still even in the game at this point as a player at the high end means that either AMD is doing something very right with meager resources, or Intel is doing something very wrong with massive resources. What I don't understand is sincere belief among the Intel friendly that since the stock has always gone up, it always will go up. This just isn't true. The people who post "My stock goes up every time Intel releases a new product, so get ready for a big surge" may be in for a big disappointment this time around. Time will tell. Regards, Kevin