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: jeff_boyd___ who wrote (21916)	12/7/2000 9:18:15 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Jeff, <If Intel had the capacity, would they ramp the PIV more quickly and cut prices to take market share from AMD even if it meant selling the PIV at breakeven?> Theoritically yes but practically no (at least on the break-even part). Yes, Intel will ramp P4 faster because of capacity availability. But capacity is not the only thing that needs to be looked at. Between RDRAM, 6-layer motherboard, expensive dual channel chipset, expensive new fans and motherboards, Intel has a $100-200 cost disadvantage at a platform level (even at high volumes). Add to that the cost of a larger P4 die and you see that P4 is unlikely to compete in the high volume $500-$1500 market anytime in the near future (at least not until RDRAM and 6 layer motherboards are done away with). <How would AMD respond? > Three ways: - laptops (looks like Q1 but it ain't over until it is over) - business SKUs (slow progress here so don't recommend holding your breath) - Pricing (AMD is already doing some of this). There is nothing in Intel's arsenal to compete with 1.2GHz chip that costs sub-$300. Chuck

To: jeff_boyd___ who wrote (21916)	12/8/2000 1:41:46 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

jeff, <Am I correct that if Intel ramped the PIV quickly and made it price competitive that AMD is essentially in the same place as they were when it was K6-2 v Celeron?> AMD's fastest chip now is as fast as Intel's fastest chip. The K6-2 was consistently 20 to 40% slower than Intel's fastest. It was about even with Intel's fastest Celeron's which meant AMD had to sell them at 30% discount to Celerons, considering the higher platform cost of K6-2. Even now, AMD's fastest is at least equal to Intel's fastest, considering performance rather than clock speed. Intel's platform cost is much higher at the high end. There are rumors that the Palomino high-end Athlon will appear well before Q2 with speeds overlapping the P4 range. This could improve AMD's ASP's even in Q1, when they are normally down. In the midrange, the Athlon clearly has higher MHz and performance than Intel's offering, the P3. At the low end, Celeron will not even be a factor compared to GHz Duron's. Without the integrated motherboards, the median Duron will have to sell for less than the median Celeron, but that will equalize with integrated motherboards, because Durons will have a 100 to 200 MHz advantage and at least double the bus speed. Petz