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 (122802)	8/22/2000 1:22:16 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578734

Ten, not really. Consider that it appears as if much, if not most, of the Dresden production is binning out at 900MHz or above, doesn't it make sense to shift the market sweet spot so that you don't have to down bin to fill orders? If your major competitor can't bin out anything in the same range as you, shouldn't you try to make the market for your stuff more general, rather than sticking with a "limited" high end that your competitor would desperately hope you would? If this is the "economics of self-destruction", then why did Intel introduce the Celeron line?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (122802)	8/22/2000 1:35:53 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578734

Technusatsu, The economics of self-destruction at work again. If this is true (and I doubt it), then AMD is once again sacrificing their own potential profits just to hurt Intel. I don't agree with combjelly about AMD's motivations for cutting prices. I think it is about selling all their products at attractive prices. AMD is pushing the upper limit of how much AMD product the market will accept, especially in the high end. If there is demand for only 500,000 $800 parts and AMD has 2 million that run at speed of current $800 MHz part, should AMD sell 500,000 $800 parts and downbin the rest? Or just not sell them? This seems to be the implication of most of the Intel longs. I understand the motivation, since such a strategy (downbinning) would help Intel (AMD's competitor) and screw AMD's customers. I am glad AMD stopped the practice of downbinning and cut prices to the level where supply meets the demand, and where the maximum revenue can be achieved. As a result of selling CPUs at the rated speed, the customers get more value of their money. The fact that it happens to screw AMD's competitor is a collateral damage, not a primary motivation. If AMD were able to supply 50% or more of the market, you could look for ulterior motives. But AMD is too small and too irrelevant to cause Intel any grief. Joe