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 (51419)	8/16/2001 3:43:31 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"But Barrett said that he wants to stimulate the market regardless the stats that show his action as slowing the market. I believe him, don't you" All he is doing is pushing on a string and reducing any pricing power Chipmakers have in the market. It may be difficult to get that pricing power back when things do turn. Seems to be a lot of left over paranoia from the Andy days. I suppose he hasn't a clue what pricing power is... Jim

To: AK2004 who wrote (51419)	8/16/2001 10:13:46 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

albert, thinking of your post about how lowering CPU costs barely lowers system costs, especially in a low demand environment, I think I've come up with a reason that CPU prices will abruptly stop dropping very soon. Simply put, M$ Windows XP and Office XP will cost the OEM's more to put on their machines than the existing Windows ME/Office 2000. Also, LCD displays are becoming commonplace. In addition to stimulating demand for new PC's XP will make it ridiculous for OEM's to build PC's with $50 CPU's when the basic box+software+drives+motherboard+memory+LCD disply will cost $750. I think the OEM's will stop pushing for $50 CPU's because they will be able to make enough money marking up the new OS and LCD screens. <rant> It is totally ridiculous that OEM's and retailers are pushing 1 GHz Athlon systems because they don't want to "embarass" Intel, when they could sell the same system for $40 more with a 1.33 GHz CPU. I don't understand why 1.2 and 1.33 Athlon systems don't outnumber 1 GHz and less systems by 4 to 1. And you won't see a 1.4 GHz AMD system next to a 1.4 GHz P4 system.</rant> Petz