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: Joe NYC who wrote (73594)	3/5/2002 10:38:58 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe, Re: "I just posted you a link of comments by HP's IA-64 chief. He seems to know a lot about it. How can it (Yamhill project) not exist? Is the HP guy making it all up?" Sticking to the direct quote and the journalist's commentary, I can only deduce that HP's IA-64 chief is aware of some kind of technology that could give extra life to the IA-32 line. He doesn't say it's a 64-bit x86 extension, but he does mention AMD, so I can see how it would give that impression. However, he also mentions that Intel has 6 or 7 IA-32 projects that could extend the life of the IA-32 architecture, and given the resources needed for any given CPU project, I can only surmise that few if any of these must have a lot of work devoted to it. As he says, Intel is a paranoid bunch, but it doesn't mean any of these technologies has actually left the drawing board. Re: "As far as Yamhill being far out in the future, I would sure hope so. Itanium's slow sinking and Yamhill delayed would be an ideal scenario for AMD." That's how I see it. But as for that being the ideal situation for AMD, that would depend on a lot of things. I have agreed in the past that AMD has an exceedingly competitive solution with Hammer. But then again, AMD has far more to tackle than just performance. Cost, power, manufacturability, marketing, sales, and infrastructure are all crucial. And I think Intel has more than enough to hold their own against Hammer, both in the 32-bit, and in the 64-bit markets. Re: "I don't think my insinuations are "continued". They are isolated only instances when I have a perception that you are posting from a script." I find that highly insulting. I pride myself on my ability to deduce conclusions based on the available information. Although I believe in Intel, that doesn't mean that all I have is FUD for AMD. I respect AMD's drive, the progress from their engineers, and their climb from the depths of where they were several years ago. Of course, I think they are several years off from being a true danger to Intel's revenues, and I base my investment decisions on that opinion. It doesn't mean that AMD won't do well on their own, but I haven't reached the conclusion that whatever is bad for Intel is good for AMD, and vice-versa like the majority of AMD investors here seem to believe. Therefore, I can't tell whether I should be angry, or take it as a complement, that you see me reading from a script. I would only suggest you use a little logic, and ask yourself why Intel would waste their time preaching to a bunch of hard-set AMD investors. It seems that there are far more effective ways of defending their positions (or spreading the FUD, however you want to look at it), besides doing it here. wbmw