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: wanna_bmw who wrote (59183)	10/18/2001 6:07:41 PM
From: chuckles58	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"AMD is being anything but conservative. It seems they are betting it all, and if they win, it will likely be big. If they miss, the losses will continue to deepen." AMD stopped talking about building a Fab 35, and are planning on converting Fab 25 to flash, leaving Fab 30 alone to produce CPU's. I think they have pulled back into a more conservative approach than where they were 12 months ago. I think putting the whole company's future on the line with Hammer may be agressive, just like they did with the Athlon. But it may be necessary to remain competitive with a company of Intel's size. I still think AMD is in a much better position than they were two years ago, despite the current situation. I think the price war may have hurt Intel more than AMD. I know AMD showed a loss and Intel did't, but how much in profits did Intel leave on the table to take back the 1% or less market share they appear to have claimed? I would think Intel shareholders would be more concerned with that than whether AMD showed a profit or not. Is $106 million in profit enough considering their market cap and $6.5 billion in revenue? As an AMD shareholder I am disappointed with the current loss, but I think it will be easier for AMD to return to the profits they had in 2000, than for Intel. I am not an advocate of price fixing, but when an airline drops their fares to increase market share, the other airlines follow suit. It's only when additional passengers make trips when they wouldn't have otherwise made that make any difference. If Intel needed the price drops in order to entice consumers to purchase PC's, then the hit to the bottom line was a necessary casualty. If it was only to hurt AMD, I think they inflicted more damage to themselves. CB

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (59183)	10/18/2001 8:17:54 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"I think that with generally larger die sizes, more .13u fabs for Intel is almost a requirement. In the end" Think about it. AMD claims that at 0.13 micron, they will be able to supply about 1/3 of the market demand. Now I don't know the size of Intel's fabs, but I suspect that they are in the range of Dresden. So Intel should be able to supply the whole market with 3 fabs. Assuming that 2 of the remaining 3 fabs are 300mm, that means the remaining 3 fabs will be equivalent to 5.5 Dresden fabs. So we would have (8.5/3)*80mm^2 or an average die size of 226mm^2 if they were serving the entire market by themselves. Now if AMD's market share is as high as 10%, that would mean an average die size of ~250mm^2, if 80% an average die size of close to 280mm^2 and so on. Intel is pushing hard for an over-capacity situation. You will likely disagree, but I don't see how Intel can gain enough market share back to justify that degree of over-production capability. This is a suicide move on Intel's part, there isn't much percentage in running a fab at less that 24/7. It looks like Intel is trying to do what the memory manufacturers are famous for, selling below the cost of production because the costs are too high not to.