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: Epinephrine who wrote (61750)	11/2/2001 1:28:05 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Epinephrine, Re: "Correct me if I'm wrong didn't Intel let Tom's Hardware Guide (the exact same site by the way) get ahold of one of the buggy 1.13GHz PIII's? And wasn't there some commotion about them denying there was a problem and refusing to confront Tom's problems? Is that so much better of a job of advocating reliability?" Intel deferred judgement until they could reproduce the failure in their labs. Because of a small change in manufacturing, Intel's samples were slightly different than Tom's samples, so they did not experience a problem. Therefore, it doesn't sound absurd that Intel was a little skeptical of Tom's assertions. Later, Tom pressed the issue, which was a good idea, since it forced Intel to do more testing, at which point they identified the speed path issue. The recall happened immediately afterward. IMO, this was the most reasonable course of action. Do you disagree? Re: "What I did say is that your allegation that AMD is somehow at fault for not effectively "advocating the reliability" of their platform by ruling the reviewers with an iron hand or by not sitting over the reviewers shoulder and preventing a minor (and vaguely defined) problem to be mentioned is hypocritical and unfair. THG is an independent reviewer, or should be." Well, let's see if AMD has an appropriate response to this. Sometimes they do, which is the right thing, IMO. Although they were very late in coming up with a response video for Tom's Burning Athlon article, which I find is a lost opportunity for them, since so many people have already seen that video now. Re: "But all this aside my main point is you are making WAY to much out of this, you are literally starting to sound like chicken little. I do respect your input and I agree that my investment needs to be carefully weighed and considered but at the same time I am not going to go storming to make a sell order like some lemming off a cliff because THG had some minor, vaguely defined, problems." Your tendency to exaggerate does not help your argument, I'm afraid. And neither does the chicken comment. I am trying to give what I consider is a valid point when considering whether to invest in a company like AMD, and you are fighting that point very aggressively. Either you agree or you disagree, but I think you are taking the argument passed what it originally was meant to be. Re: "And your suggestion that I should immediately reevaluate my established investment position in a company trading at or near book value because of THG's claims is a little too much fearmongering for me." Again you exaggerate. What I said was that you have choices in your investment, and by that I mean that you should consider every aspect of the strength of a company. If you are going to ignore this weakness of AMD by implying that Intel has the same weakness, then that's not a good basis for an investment, IMO. I think you recognize that AMD has room for improvement, but I think you underestimate the task ahead of them, if you continue to defer blame by mentioning Intel. Intel knows how to deal with problems, and still maintain the perception of quality. AMD does not, and that makes a big difference. It's just one of the many fundamentals behind why they are trading at book value, as you so keenly mention. wanna_bmw