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: Road Walker who wrote (58898)	10/17/2001 5:42:24 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"Explain to me again, why don't X-box chips count? Would they count if they were AMD chips?" If XBox chips count, then the market should include the other consoles also. And no, they wouldn't count if they were AMD chips. Things like webpads, PDAs and set top boxes shouldn't count either.

To: Road Walker who wrote (58898)	10/17/2001 5:54:08 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"Explain to me again, why don't X-box chips count? Would they count if they were AMD chips?" What matters is that X-box sales don't come at AMDs expense. I never said they didn't count. Intel had to count them to maintain share. Without them they lost share. They count as unit volume, other say they shouldn't be counted, they they are embedded chips. Can't say how much Intel makes on them but it isn't much. What I did say a while back is that if AMD lost 100 million and lost market share...that would be a real disaster. This way it's just half a disaster. It all goes back to the delays of the Palomino core. This hit home in Q3. RE:"Loss again next quarter..." Likely yes, but not as bad. Still, going forward AMD needs that Hammer now and they don't seem to be able to deliver it anytime soon. a 1900+ and more is what they need in the short run. Jim