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 (86217)	8/1/2002 9:27:29 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Except 2H 2002 was the schedule for Clawhammer announced at the Wit Soundview conference a year ago, when AMD was trading at 13 to 20. So what "delay" are you talking about? Yousef and Wanna keep confusing AMD's 64-bit chip, which has barely slipped from its earliest schedule, with Intel's 64-bit chip, which was a full 5 years late.

To: Petz who wrote (86217)	8/1/2002 9:41:03 PM
From: Yousef	Respond to of 275872

Petz, Re: "Very true. Except 2H 2002 was the schedule for Clawhammer announced at the Wit Soundview conference a year ago, when AMD was trading at 13 to 20. So what "delay" are you talking about?" Does it really matter when AMD says it will ship product ... The delay should be measured from when the competitor ships their .13um processors. Obviously AMD is behind in both process technology and processor performance. Until AMD matches this, they will continue to lose market share and have "reduced" revenues. The 'Droids really are in serious "Da Nile". <ggg> Make It So, Yousef

To: Petz who wrote (86217)	8/2/2002 2:09:21 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz, Re: "Except 2H 2002 was the schedule for Clawhammer announced at the Wit Soundview conference a year ago, when AMD was trading at 13 to 20. So what "delay" are you talking about?" Sorry if I've come into the conversation without my bearings, but H2 2002 was not the original schedule for Hammer. The earliest I've been able to find of AMD mentioned Hammer is right here, with a quote from Rob Herb. "Sledgehammer's our eighth generation, 64-bit solution. We clearly think it's a superior solution, and that it's going to deliver the ultimate performance in 32-bit legacy applications, while giving you the performance you need in 64-bit applications moving forward. That product is scheduled to be introduced in late 2001, and we're still on plan with that as well." jc-news.com Clearly, if AMD was on schedule with Hammer, then they would have had every opportunity to steal the 64-bit market from Intel. Likewise, if Intel actually released Merced when they had originally planned in 1999 ( intel.com ), then Hammer might have never even been a possibility for AMD. Time To Market is a very important aspect for a product in this industry. The relative strengths of two competing product lines cannot be fully compared without understanding the Time To Market implications. Intel's Itanium slipped two years before finally being released in 2001, and if Hammer meets its new deadline of early 2003, then it will have slipped about a year and 3 months. If either of these products had been Time To Market, then there might not even be a race to run. Unfortunately, both have been delayed, so now the jury is still out. wbmw