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: Charles Gryba who wrote (71768)	2/17/2002 3:10:51 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Charles Re...hmaly, worst case for Intel is that the Itanium dies. Worst case for AMD is that Itanium dies. The reason being that Intel will have all this huge capacity and since the P4 is a lot smaller than Itanium they will be able to tack on large caches to the P4 and go after the corporate market that way. <<<<<< While you are correct that AMD will do better in the short term if Itanium is a sucess, because that will suck up Intels capacity; in the long term, AMD might be better off with the price war now, when Intel doesn't have a good answer for Intanium (unless McKinley is better than we think.); and the P4 won't be able theoretically to compete with clawhammer, until the Yawmill version comes out. I figure, until Intel decides the big die theory is dead, simply because it is too expensive and AMd has the capacity to defeat it; Intel will be vulnerable to AMD in a price war. Intel needs Itanium far more than AMD does, because Itanium will allow Intel to make its profits there. Without a successful Itanium, and Xeons getting matched or beat by Hammer, Intel will have to get down and dirty in all segments in order to compete with AMD in a price war. But with AMD's lower cost structure, and smaller die, and comparable performance, AMD will likely win in the end. Unless Intel is able to shed its dead weight,( the extra fabs and big dies,) and recognize the threat AMD is, Intel won't be able to win. Give Intel 5 yrs though, and Intel might be able to revamp its product to meet the threat. Will intel go broke. No But it could easily be another IBM, or GM, or Lucent, and stagnate, until Intel takes the necessary steps. Now I realize that sounds awfull cocky that a company 1/4 the size of Intel could beat it. That may be too much to say. But the timing in my estimation would never be better for AMd; so if a fight is inevitable; AMd would want to do it now.

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (71768)	2/18/2002 2:44:02 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

worst case for Intel is that the Itanium dies. Worst case for AMD is that Itanium dies Not if Itanium dies in mid 2002 and Intel's Prescott+Yamhill technology is not ready until 2004. That would be a very good situation for AMD. The original Mercury news article stated 2003/4 as the timeline for Prescott. How often as anything predicted that far in the future arrived at the most optimistic date, from either AMD or Intel? If Prescott (let alone Prescott with Yamhill extensions!) were going to be ready in mid 2003, we would have to see first silicon this summer. Petz