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: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (18448)	11/9/2000 7:02:33 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Respond to of 275872

Pravin, Re: They reiterated that they were on target for high single digit revenue growth and total year end revenue of $4.8 billion. Overall I think the meeting was quite disappointing. The growth numbers given aren't that spectacular and management doesn't show much confidence in making inroads in the more profitable CPU business (workstatations, servers) as they predict ASPs to stay flat in the coming year. Revenue growth in the high teens for Q1 2001 YOY aren't that good either, with revenue of ca. 1,090 billion in Q1 2001 that should translate to barely 1,300 billion -- probably down from Q4 2001. (yes, I know, it's seasonal, but I'd expect more) On the processor front the Athlon news were disappointing, too. Although a 1.2 GHz Athlon will beat P4 in many benchmarks it will lose in others and has the MHz disadvantage. When 1.5 Ghz will come out at the end of Q2 Intel will be probably at +1.8 GHz. I don't like that AMD doesn't admit that their release dates are slipping and that they are cancelling products without even saying so -- even Intel released a press release when their Timna project was cancelled. I don't know why AMD isn't more straightforward about that. Having said that I still believe that AMD is undervalued. With >20% growth in 2001 the stock should get at least a P/E of 20 and that would translate to more than double today's stock price. Andreas

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (18448)	11/9/2000 7:14:13 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Pravin, Something else that bugged me was that the 0.13u version of Clawhammer would be less than 100 square mm. 99mm is less than 100, so is 50, but I get your point. If the 64-git overhead were really only 5%, it would be much smaller than that. They did say that Sledge had been designed with a long pipe to support frequency scaling. I'm beginning to wonder if they didn't go back and lengthen the pipe after Intel showed their hand with the P4. I guess the extra stages of the pipe take up space. If the same change was made to Athlon (extra stages), it would take space as well. So the 5% overhead may be related to a theoretical Athlon with extra stages. Joe