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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (4764)	8/12/2000 4:40:34 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Yougang, When AMD acquired NexGen, they also acquired a new president from NexGen, can't remember the man's name right now. He got upset with Jerry still pushing certain things, like the Dresden fab which the new guy wanted to sell so he left, taking with him most of the K-8 engineers. So the Sledgehammer design as we know it was started after his leaving. In retrospect, the desire to sell the Dresden fab seems somewhat addled, but at the time it was a good decision and jerry was being bull-headed about keeping it. The current Sledgehammer design makes a lot of sense. The loss of Atiq was probably the best thing to happen to AMD the last couple of years. If he was smart, he wouldn't have left. The Raging Bull post seems accurate historically, though I disagree with his conclusions. K7 is the reason for AMD's recent success, and will continue to be the reason going out into the future. Scumbria

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (4764)	8/12/2000 5:02:15 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 275872

Yougang, Well, luck as well as some periods of good execution and good strategic decisions worked for Intel....why not for AMD. Note, history decides if a move is a dumb move or an excellent strategic decision. Now we have all those brilliant strategic decisions made by Intel on the 820, Rambus, DDR etc(at least that is what they were called at the time, we have far better descriptives for them now)... Bill

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (4764)	8/12/2000 8:36:35 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Yougang Xiao: I'll say it...Who cares how it happenned??? The point is it has happenned...AMD is now offering 1 gig processors for less than $500, comparing very favourably with its primary competitor's "phantom offering" of 1 gig processors at close to double $500 last time I looked...Factor in memory,and an "all-in" comparable 1 gig system is way out of line on any price/performance basis...The laws of economics will prevail, regardless of how AMD reached the point of producing retail quantities of 1 gig processors before INTC...AMD has just raised the bar another notch...and no amount of "red herring" press releases about luck or any other theme by the Intellabee faithful is likely to mask much longer the fact that the top end has become a one company competition!!! AMD's operational profit is taking off as evidenced by 3 successive record breaking quarters and will probably be evidenced by $2.00 and $3.00 eps in Q3 and Q4 respectively...Doubt its competitors eps will even keep close even if it includes significant capital gains in its operational earnings in Q3 and Q4...the short and simple reason being, that PWeeIII can no longer compete on a price/performance basis with the new champion, the Athlon, now that Dresden is up and running... Some may call it luck...but I've never seen a company deliver 3 successive record breaking quarters based on luck and every indicator pointing to 2 more record breaking quarters in Q3 and Q4...Luck??? I'd call it da*n good performance!!! Luck is defined as Intel maintaining a market price of $63 when all indicators suggest AMD has them in check in low medium and high end of the market, something that will become apparent even to those currently claiming luck within the next 6 months when it becomes apparent that AMD is about to flood (i.e 10 million processors/quarter) the market with the best, by a large degree, price/performance product in the marketplace, the Athlon...

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (4764)	8/13/2000 12:29:35 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Youang Re..<<<<<<<This post says AMD's recent success is due to luck, no more no less.<<<<< Youang, the simple fact is that many great companies were founded on luck. Look at AT&T. Graham Bell applied for his telephone patent mere 6 hrs. before his competitor submitted his. Coca Cola was founded when the founder of Coke bought the formula to Coke for $75. Ray Kroc ate at a fast food restaurant in California and started McDonald's. The greatest luck of all might go to Intel which was probably headed for obscurity until IBM picked Intel to supply the new chip, primarily because the 8086 was the worst chip, not the best. (could Intel be hoping lightning strikes twice with its IA-64?) In addition, as that article points out, Intel stole part of the design for the 486 from Dec, but because of Dec's perilous financial condition, settled with Intel, rather than persuing a lawsuit, which could have resulted in a huge payoff for Dec. It was AMD's bad luck that Intel was chosen to build the IBM chip, not the Z-80, which AMD was fabricating as a second source at that time. It was also AMD's bad luck that the earthquake hit Taiwan last sept. delaying the Athlon. Don't let anyone kid you. Luck plays a role in everyone's life. All of us here in some ways are counting on more problems from Intel; which will give us a bigger payoff over a shorter period of time. Some people will say that it is luck that Intel is screwing up. Others will say that it is probable that a company with such arrogance will get its come-uppance eventually. I believe in the latter. Any company that thinks of itself before the customers will eventually lose those customers. Apple, in order to maximize profits, closed it system and lost it's customers. IBM tried to push the microchannel on us and lost its customers. Now Intel tried to push Rambus on us. Will the outcome be the same?