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: heatsinker2 who wrote (148544)	1/20/2005 6:13:58 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I don't see it as a loss leader at $240, $314 and $5xx. Why is Intel doing it? Simply to say they were first to the desktop with dual core. It's a PR stunt. They know it sucks, because they considered releasing a similarly designed server part, but decided against because of the awful performance and power characteristics. The server customer isn't as easily fooled as the consumer. With Intel selling the 5xx series in the mainstream AND adding the 6xx series next month, it seems pretty clear that the 8xx Smithfield series is a niche product, largely for PR.

To: heatsinker2 who wrote (148544)	1/20/2005 6:16:06 PM
From: mas_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

So what does AMD do, continue with notion of one dual-core FX model or have say a new range, e.g. the DX, which spans more than one bin ? I think they need the latter leaving the FX as it is but rely on the higher performance of their dual parts to charge more than Intel although the parts will be a similar size to the current 130nm Opteron (~190 sq mm) and if they are getting $200 asp min does it really matter that market share goes down due to capacity constraints ? Hopefully Chartered will come on stream later this year to help out. I do think AMD has no choice but to follow in a fashion as this is where Intel is leading the market and it needs equivalents even if fast uni cores are still its main desktop priority.

To: heatsinker2 who wrote (148544)	1/20/2005 7:14:49 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 275872

So what's up? Maybe this is gonna be like flash. A loss leader for Intel that aims to screw up AMD's strategy. Even if they are intentionally selling it cheaper then they could in order to hurt AMD it won't be a loss leader, at $200 (or more) per unit each chip sold will produce a profit. I suppose the loss you are referring to is either the loss of income they could have gotten for selling it at a higher price or the loss in income they could have gotten from selling two single core chips for as much (or more if they bin high enough) each. In other words an opportunity cost rather than a direct cost, and less income not a real loss. Tim