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: ptanner who wrote (78271)	4/24/2002 6:12:21 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 275872

PT, Re: "This surprises me a little as it would still seem ideal for the workstation market." The workstation market is getting more segmented these days. There are plenty of "low end" workstations that I think AMD will pursue with UP systems. However, multiprocessing "high end" workstations really require a different set of requirements. AMD's block diagram is too similar to their server platform, which I believe will have an associated cost that makes it more prohibitive for the workstation market. But I'm only second guessing. From Tom's article, it did seem like AMD was making a half-hearted attempt at workstations, so I would assume they have a good reason. At any rate, I think that AMD's timing will be critical next year. If they can get systems and infrastructure implanted early enough in 2003, they can get real server systems selling by the second half. Intel will be at least 6 months behind in offering a comparable "Prescott" level server (or longer, given Intel's recent lag between getting desktop and server volume availability). Still too early to tell, but AMD has the ability to gain share in servers, since I believe their plans to be both sound and compelling. I don't expect sudden 10% gains or anything, since it will take some real OEM commitments to make that kind of headway, and still AMD has yet to announce any progress in that area. But the cause and effect relationship that many people on this thread claim is possible between market share gains and OEM acceptance could be possible. The Hammer design looks like it's progressing much better than I had anticipated, though, but it seems that AMD now has to work more on the manufacturing side of the business. OEMs are still not going to commit on a design if AMD can't ensure good volumes of product, and a single Dresden fab isn't a sure bet by any means (I'm assuming that UMC will be manufacturing K7s, but I could be wrong). Lot's of variables left, but I like what I see so far. wbmw

To: ptanner who wrote (78271)	4/24/2002 6:19:28 PM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

PT: dual claw = opteron? not on roadmap The answer was given fairly clearly in the Q&A session: Q - Kevin Krewell, MicroProcessor Report Congratulations guys. [thank you&#133 thank you&#133] Hi, so, actually, I'd like to clarify one thing first. The Opteron brand name would also apply to a ClawHammer in the workstation space, is that correct? A: That is correct. On the current road map you will see a Clawhammer DP, as well as a Sledgehammer part, on our publicly available road map - and both of those products will actually be branded the AMD Opteron going forward. Q: And I assume you're going to differentiate Sledge from Claw with some sort of postscript on it&#133 A: Yes, that is correct. That is a good assumption. -fyo