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: dale_laroy who wrote (37935)	4/30/2001 11:55:05 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dale: And it didn't hurt that AMD made the transition to 0.18-micron in November 1999 instead of Q1 2000 as they had previously announced. Picking up on the subject of AMD's upcoming transition to 0.13&#181&#133 Jerry promised that they would be done with the transition by end of next year. He didn't say this in the context of Dresden and he didn't qualify his statement with any "Dresden only" remark. The more I listen to it (the shareholders' meeting), the more I interpret it as meaning that Austin will be converted to 0.13&#181 as well. I just don't see AMD developing 3 separate processes. Ahh I don't know&#133 I'm confused :( (fyi, the comments came towards the end of the webcast - at the beginning of the Q&A session, IIRC) -fyo

To: dale_laroy who wrote (37935)	5/1/2001 9:09:42 AM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

> This is 20/20 hindsight. Who would have thought Intel would have screwed > up as bad as they did. They handed profitability to AMD on a silver platter. This may be 20/20 hindsight now, but when I believed it a year ago, it was 20/20 foresight. > Imagine if Intel had not initiated the race to 1.0 GHz. Then AMD would have had a rather solid performance advantage. In full niceguaic fashion, I point out that they would have had a solid edge and, in fact, they would have fabbed more parts if they didn't have to focus as much on ramping frequency. > And it didn't hurt that AMD made the transition to 0.18-micron > in November 1999 instead of Q1 2000 as they had previously announced. Um, what? The 180nm transition was not ahead of schedule, to my memory. Any source on this? The Coppermine, though superior in some respects, was an overall weaker processor compared to the K75. It was inherently harder to ramp, and this would have guaranteed at least some of the things you perceive as "screw-ups", such as the "vapour releases" at most speed grades of the product. And this isn't hindsight. It's what I solidly believed as much as a year and a half ago. Well, except that both Intel and AMD actually executed far, far beneath my expectations, making loads of mistakes that really made them look stupid.     -JC