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: dougSF30 who wrote (149146)	1/26/2005 1:56:03 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: No, AMD will never get to 50% revenue share until they have the CAPACITY to produce 50% revenue share. But that is coming in 2006. Reminds me of the good old days when just to acheive 22% marketshare AMD was selling their fastest 1.4GHz Athlon for $100. Does anyone look forward to Athlon 64 ASPs of $50 in 2006? I prefer AMD to get 50% of the share of net CPU profits, and that has a lot more to do with improving product awareness (through advertising) and increasing their performance/features lead over Intel rather than just spitting out more CPUs than the market can absorb at reasonable prices. I doubt AMD will be able increase its market share enough in 2006 and 2007 to justify looking outside the company to produce CPUs.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (149146)	1/26/2005 2:01:26 PM
From: Cravey	Respond to of 275872

At the risk of piling on, it is not smoke and mirrors that make Intel the dominant player in the market. It is that they are as close to being the only game in town as you can get right now in terms of capacity. Using IDC estimates, the market grew from 45M worldwide PC ships in Q403 to somewhere around 51M ships in Q404. Intel is the only one who can support this kind of volume growth and has been in that position for years. It is not smoke and mirrors, but capacity that makes all the difference. This is the wildcard of '06. If you do not think it makes a difference, look at the pricing premium Intel enjoys in the consumer space (small) where AMD participates in volume vs the premium it enjoys in the commercial space (rather large)where AMD is limited in offerings. Capacity has always been the competitive issue. I do of course acknowledge Intel does a superior marketing job. However, it is smaller than the overriding advantage of capacity. That is the issue Fab36 and Charter address. Get that one right and the marketing starts to fall in line. Also, for whoever asked, the Intel inside program reimburses somewhere between 4-6% of processor cost depending upon the media used. Less for print, more for television. This is dated a few years, but should still be in the ballpark.