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: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (58985)	10/17/2001 10:39:35 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Pravin, I think Intel will try to force industry (AMD) to increase the die size. I think Intel will continue to increase L2 from 256K -> 512K -> 1MB. This way, they will reduce AMD's capacity back down to some 25 to 30 million units, as AMD will be forced to follow. Joe

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (58985)	10/17/2001 11:03:48 PM
From: heatsinker2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Pravin- No talk of returning to profitability In real estate it's location, location, location. For AMD it's flash, flash, flash.

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (58985)	10/18/2001 1:03:28 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 275872

RE:"With out a significant value-added competitive advantage (ie Hammer), processors may have to be sold near cost for set top boxes, information appliances, and low cost PCs". Thats the problen AMD had in Q3. Prices key right off the top Mhz. Intel priced the 1.4 Ghz P4 at about the same price as the T-bird 1.4 and skimmed what little cream there was with the 1.7 and 1.5 and later 2.0 Ghz chips... Jim

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (58985)	10/18/2001 5:38:49 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 275872

Pravin, Yes going to 300MM as well as .13 increases capacity enormously, far more than the market can absorb. As another suggests, value added in cache size to eat up this space does work, but it has a diminishing return effect and at 512K you have most of the advantages in performance. Going to 1M or 4M cache gives little more performance, except in marketing advantage. The big shootout will happen when the hammer hits the Intel anvil, which will crack? Will the advantage of the hammer in running legacy code outweight the IA64 pure 64 only approach? It seems to me that the hammer will have the best of both worlds and can dradually wean away from the legacy 32 bit code with successor products. Then again, software written for IA64 will not run on the hammer at all, or on older Intel parts like the P-3/4 so will people bother with IA64 when it has a restricted market? Will the IA64 ride down the ways and, lacking flotation, vanish beneath the waves? 'All hands abandon ship' will be the cry if Intel has indeed made a huge error like this. Bill