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: Milan Shah who wrote (48959)	7/25/2001 12:56:11 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 275872

Re: "For one, the strong belief is that AMD's business model is supposedly profitable at much lower ASPs than Intels. But, if this were true, then with falling ASPs, Intel should be first to cross into a loss, then followed by AMD if ASPs keep sliding. So, why is it that Intel has not warned of a loss in Q3 but AMD has?" Simple - "the strong belief is that AMD's business model is supposedly profitable at much lower ASPs than Intels" - is WRONG ! You have been swallowing Dan3's babble (and maybe the departed Nicegy666's as well ) - that guy knows absolutely nothing about CPUs or accounting.

To: Milan Shah who wrote (48959)	7/25/2001 12:57:18 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 275872

Re: "So, how come no one has uttered Desktop Palomino recently?" Good question - I can think of a few answers - how about you?

To: Milan Shah who wrote (48959)	7/25/2001 1:05:31 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: ". When I went long on AMD, it was under the thinking that even if the company can make a razor thin profit, it will continue to get stronger, whereas, given the current ASPs, Intel should become weaker and weaker. Instead, it appears the opposite is happening - why?" Razor thin profits are acceptable for razor manufacturers. For CPUs, the rate of change is so rapid that enormous sums of money must be invested in continually designing new devices. Further, the technology to manufacture these devices requires continual investments of a BILLION DOLLARS or more per year in manufacturing facilities - just look at AMD's CAPEX expenses. You can't spend a BILLION DOLLARS/YEAR when you only make a few million dollars/year - at least not for very long. Intel just had a fairly bad quarter - and still reported an $854 MILLION profit. Just think what that extra money can do for Intel - and what AMD can't do because AMD didn't make anywhere near that amount ($17 million I think was AMD's profit last quarter).

To: Milan Shah who wrote (48959)	7/25/2001 2:38:33 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>For one, the strong belief is that AMD's business model is supposedly profitable at much lower ASPs than Intels. But, if this were true, then with falling ASPs, Intel should be first to cross into a loss, then followed by AMD if ASPs keep sliding. So, why is it that Intel has not warned of a loss in Q3 but AMD has?< Because, as bad as the processor market is, Flash is suffering far greater losses. AMD is bigger in Flash, and Intel does not need higher ASPs in Flash than AMD.