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: AK2004 who wrote (28266)	2/13/2001 10:58:55 AM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

albert: "Intel's superior product offerings and its brand name were enough to justify price premiums with OEMs, given AMD's reliably poor execution in the past. However, AMD's recent step up in the performance (and yields) game, along with the growing number of supporting chipsets and motherboards (indicating the industry's increasing acceptance of AMD's products) have now put Intel and AMD essentially neck-and-neck in the processor performance arena, diminishing Intel's traditional leverage." Knee jerk market reaction is that if the environment is "bad" for INTC, it must be really bad for AMD...WRONG!!! 150 million microprocessors will be sold in Y2001 of which AMD, owing to relatively small size and performance and pricing advantages are positioned to gain market share even in a flat or declining general market...As well, and not unimportantly, AMD has not had to lean on an investment portfolio to prop up earnings over the past year, a practice, which if a weak Nas persists, may expose yet another vulnerability of its major competitor!!!

To: AK2004 who wrote (28266)	2/13/2001 11:02:40 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Yields of the P4 appear to be in the 35-40% range, while the P3 continues to average around 75-80%. Thus, simply saying that "all is well, just wait for 0.13 micron/300mm" is not going to cut it, as volume production on 0.13 micron is not something that is going to happen in earnest anytime in the next 12 months-more likely 0.13 micron is an early 2002 story. (CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION) OUCH! I'm sure a couple of people on this thread will... disagree... with the above claims. -fyo

To: AK2004 who wrote (28266)	2/13/2001 1:07:08 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Albert, Tough report. Based on what he said here: Thus, we find the argument that Intel is cheap hard to swallow for three reasons: There is no certainty that PCs will recover in 2001, let alone lead the industry out of this downturn. Intel is already trading at twice its historical multiple. There is more downside risk to INTC's earnings. We therefore downgrade our rating to a Hold rating from a Buy, and we recommend investors sit on the sidelines with any PC-component stocks until visibility and demand rebound, and valuations return to realistic levels. He could have just as well rate it "sell". Joe

To: AK2004 who wrote (28266)	2/13/2001 2:08:17 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Interesting article... I honestly don't think that the author knows a metal interconnect from a polysilicon gate, but there are a couple of glaring flaws in his analysis... and I mean GLARING. First and foremost, 0.13 micron and 300mm may be "one and the same" to the people in Ireland and New Mexico... but there is also a 200mm process which has completed development in Oregon that is going to Arizona and possibly Massachusetts as well. The 300mm development project is most likely independent of the 200mm development. So while 0.13 micron on 300mm may be 12 months away... it's much closer in 200mm land... Second, in terms of raw performance the Intel 0.18 micron process is excellent. There were clearly some issues with the product, RDRAM, the MTH, etc., but those have absolutely nothing to do with the process. Where he's getting yield data is a good question as Intel doesn't publish such information and the data used looks remarkably fabricated (i.e. assume a "good" yield for P3 and halve it for P4).