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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (60117)	10/25/2001 12:31:13 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

> Hammer brings nothing new to the table. AMD already has a > strong product in Athlon, yet even with that they are > losing money. AMD's big loss quarter was simultaneous with the time period in which AMD lost the "performance crown". I do not know if there was a causality, but if there was, then there is some basis for assuming that a higher performing product (from a relative to opponent standpoint) will give them a stronger bottom line. > Hammer looks like a good product, but it's more of an > evolutionary step, not a revolutionary one Given that more evolutionary products than revolutionary succeed in the marketplace, why do you think that this is a bad thing? > Intel is obviously very tight-lipped over the details > of McKinley. That could be either a good thing or a bad thing (probably a mix of both, as is the case with most new product introductions). I expect that McKinley will rather good, though, because it is an evolutionary product and not a revolutionary product. > Funny how McKinley will arrive before Hammer. Will it? Can you justify that? How long before McKinley reaches mass production will they have to start pilot production? -JC

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (60117)	10/25/2001 1:44:57 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench Re...Hammer brings nothing new to the table. AMD already has a strong product in Athlon, yet even with that they are losing money.<<<<<<<<<< True, but how many companies in the tech sector aren't? INtel. if their books are honest, would be one of the few that made money. So to say AMD lost money during one the biggest downturn in semi's ever, isn't saying much. If AMD had lost money during 99-00 period while thing were going good, then I would be worried. You already concede that Athlon is a good product. The question is, is the P4 also a good product; or is it just surviving upon hype, and somewhat deceptive sales tactics. (passing off the P4 with the i845 chipset, as a good substitute for the I850) We all know AMD needs to advertise. The articles in PC-world we saw the other day; all of the good reviews on the web sites, etc. tell us that the athlon is a very capable chip. The reviews on the p4 are lukewarm at best. The reviews on McKinley also are so so. Hammer reviews were much better than I, and I believe most of us would have expected. Frankly, I would have been happy to hear hammer could surpass Xeon, but most reviewers were comparing Hammer to McKinley. That is probably more than Hammer deserves, but you can bet that if Intc would have had good reviews on the P4 Xeons, or Mc Kinleys, no one would have been so quick to say the Hammer could challenge McKinley. Intels lack of good reviews has made many in the field embrace Hammer; probably and mainly because of Athlons excellence. Two yrs ago, before Athon, no one would have believed in AMD and Hammer. Now they do. That is how much the tide has turned. Eventually, the Athlon will be selling on its merits, not just as a cheap alternative, much as Japanese cars do today. The good reviews will in time overcome Intels marketing. . x86-64 will be going nowhere for quite a while thanks to lack of OS support.<<<<<< AFAIK Linus is already ported; and on this board, I believe it was Milan, who showed XP would be changed to support 86-64. Funny how McKinley will arrive before Hammer. ?????? Itanic was scheduled to arrive before Athlon. Hammer wasn't even started until 2 yrs ago. Intel has 30 times the engineers and resources. It is very impressive that Hammer has already stolen McKINLEYS limelight, and may just well seal McKinely's fate, if the reviews are to be believed.. You'll see then just how well McKinley can do, even as an 0.18u product.<<<<<< And when I do, I will reinvest in Intel. Until then, I dislike companies who survive by intimidation rather than excellence. Marketing can do a lot, but it can't overcome determined excellence; and if there is one thing you have to concede, it is that Sanders is one determined son of a bitch. Determination like that usually overcomes in the end; and Athlon and Hammer could very well be the vehicles he does it with.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (60117)	10/25/2001 3:30:31 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

>Hammer brings nothing new to the table.< Hammer, if it delivers on its promises, will bring a significantly higher clock rate to the table. If Hammer is able to match the actual clock rate of Northwood, AMD could do as well, or even better, with Hammer than they did initially with Athlon. > AMD already has a strong product in Athlon, yet even with that they are losing money.< This is because AMD is clueless on how to market performance versus clock rate. Well, perhaps not. We will have to see what impact Quantispeed has on the market. > Hammer looks like a good product, but it's more of an evolutionary step, not a revolutionary one. x86-64 will be going nowhere for quite a while thanks to lack of OS support.< But Hammer is no more an x86-64 application platform than Merced. Hammer is targeted at the x86-32 market. With regards to x86-64, Hammer is little more than a development platform for K9.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (60117)	10/25/2001 3:56:09 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

These words from the same Man that fears HT. Hammer brings allot to the table otherwise you wouldn't be here posting so much.. Your Fear is very apparent. M.