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: Monica Detwiler who wrote (79307)	5/4/2002 3:50:21 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Monica, Re: "Looks like AMD will be 733 MHz behind Intel in CPU speeds come Monday morning." I'm afraid you're incorrect. 2533MHz - 1733MHz = 800MHz. Please try to be more careful in the future. TIA. <G> wbmw

To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (79307)	5/4/2002 10:09:15 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Looks like AMD will be 733 MHz behind Intel in CPU speeds come Monday morning. Yep, or maybe 667, if the XP 2200+ is released at the same time. Still, AMD's lower manufacturing costs allow it aggressive pricing that lets AMD continue to hold or gain market and revenue share. And, while intel's clocks may oscillate faster, AMD continues to provide considerably higher performance in many applications - and always at lower cost. aceshardware.com aceshardware.com More and more buyers are recognizing that 90% of the performance of either company's best chips can be had for 40% of the cost - and that 90% of application use is dependant on other factors such as disk or network speed. Fewer and fewer buyers are willing to spend twice as much for an overall 1% or 2% increase in performance. AMD's strategy is to be able to make money on $100 ASPs. Intel needs about $150 ASPs. Right now, Intel is getting about $172 and AMD is getting about $90. But AMD's ASPs have been rising as Intel's have been falling. AMD ASPs used to be in the $70 range while Intel's were over $200. AMD's more efficient architecture and its expansion into the mobile and server markets has done wonders for its ability to "take on" Intel.

To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (79307)	5/4/2002 10:19:50 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Remember Mr. Jerry Sanders' promise that AMD would not fall behind Intel by more than 533 MHz this year? Yes. It sure looks like SOI is taking longer than expected. Since they're sampling SOI Athlon XP-64s, they're in limited production on SOI, but costs are probably still too high to the wider implementation that they expected would be the case at this time. Fortunately for AMD, it's difficult to get very excited about an intel 2533 vs. an AMD 2200. Especially when the AMD 2200 costs 1/2 what the Intel part costs and performs better in many applications. This fall, when Intel likely is at 2800 or 3000 on 32-bits, AMD will be at 2600 on 32-bit Athlon and 3400 on 64-bit Clawhammer. And AMD will continue to provide more performance per dollar, and will continue to provide equal or superior total performance on most applications.