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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (109004)	8/30/2000 3:59:25 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

> The problem that AMD had prior to K7, was that they were trying to compete armed only with an inferior design (K6). > The tables appear to be turned now, and Intel is going through the same struggles. Oh, we're in agreement over that, most certainly. But that's where we might diverge in opinion. I inferred from what you said that we shouldn't have faith in Intel because of their mishaps in the months before the P4 debut. But I know you were incredibly gung-ho about the K7, despite the fact that the situation was really very similar, save for the architectural analysis. But I think I'm getting ahead of myself. You pretty much have a lock on how you think the part will perform (and I don't really disagree, though I'm trying to tread the safe side by assuming that drops in performance will have less severity than expected). The admittedly minor point I was trying to make was that you had little reason to give Intel the benefit of the doubt because of their twelve-month track record, whereas you gave AMD every benefit of the doubt before the K7 actually came out. Aside from the architectural effects, I'm just hoping that you understand that AMD was screwing up then just like Intel is doing now, and hence wasn't really more deserving of the benefit of the doubt. But like I said, this is perhaps a minor point. :)