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: Petz who wrote (76436)	4/3/2002 11:14:49 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

Petz, Too late. There is no aluminum version of the Palomino core, only the Morgan core. That's true. I am just being a Monday morning quarterback, but I see the same problem repeating over and over on the roadmap. But why do you think the Duron needs the extra L2? Increasing the FSB to 1332 would make just as much difference.* In order to make it more desirable, in order to be able to sell them. Duron's desirability vs. Tualatin is very limited, sales are dropping (ratio wnet from more Durons to more Athlons, meaning Duron sales are down). Appaloosa will be a complete failure, and it is a complete waste of resources. The resources put in will never be recovered. Not only that, but Appaloosa is opening such a gigantic can of warms with second QS rating scheme that it distroy instantly the credibility of QS all together. Success of QS is the difference between processor revenues of ~700M and $400M, if AMD ends up losing PR battle and will end up selling chips on MHz, or not selling at all. For a product that will generate $0 profits on its own (Appaloosa), burn resources that could be used elsewhere, this is too much of a risk. AMD should scrap Appaloosa, and just sell .18u Palomino, later Tbred Athlons, lower speed parts at Duron prices, and should just call it Athlon. THere is no reason why AMD needs to follow Intel's segmentation strategy. One advantage of this approach is that AMD will not need to be afraid to build up inventory of higher speed parts. If they don't sell out, they can be sold quarter even 2 quarters later at bargain (duron) prices. Right now, inventory management is more difficult, because AMD is in this segmentation trap, where they don't want to sell same speed Duron and Athlon. The result is that the lower speed Athlons become EOL products very fast, and AMD has to walk a tight line on inventory control. This segmentation has AMD in a state of paralysis, and rather than break free, AMD is getting trapped more and more, taking away flexibility, wasting resources, risking the whole TPI with second QS rating, not because it is a good idea, but because the management is paralyzed. Compared to Navy ships, AMD management is the aircraft carrier, Intel is a PT boat, while it should be the other way around. Anyway, another advantage is that there is one fewer products to support. It is a complete waste of resources to do everything twice, once for Athlon, once for Duron, when the market for each is 4 million chips or less. In short, just rename Duron to be Athlon XP, but with lower clock speeds. Well, I think while there is still anybody interested in buying Austin chips, AMD should just continue (until the market leaves Austin based CPUs behind), and this way, Duron would be automatically phased out. Appaloosa should never see the light of day. Duron name should go into hibernation. Joe