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 (149158)	1/26/2005 2:51:06 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: You're completely misguided if you think AMD can get to 50% share of CPU profits with a small fraction of CPU revenues. Regarding the K7 days, Intel owned all the other segments, and could afford to play games with desktop prices while making huge profits in server/workstation. Not so, this time around. Big advertising would be a massive waste of $$$ at this point in time. And you'd be screaming about it after the next earnings report. You are completely misguided to believe that having manufacturing capacity to generate 50% revenue also generates customer demand. I suppose Apple's only problem in gaining market share and profitability is manufacturing capacity. If only they produced 20 times more Macs they could get 50% revenue share and be much more profitable than they are now. What if AMD had produced 5 times as many Durons and Athlons a couple years ago? Do you really think AMD would have been more profitable? Or do you think tens of millions of unsold Athlons and Durons would have been laying around in warehouses collecting dust? As far as "playing games" with desktop prices it was AMD playing the games. When did Willamette or Northwood undercut AMD on pricing? Does anyone ever remember P4 selling for half, a third, or a quarter of the equivalent Athlon? I didn't think so. Re: Again, 1M Smithfields per year is a micro-product for Intel, and would not require a response from AMD. You can't have it both ways. If it is enough to cause AMD to need to respond in 2005, it is more than enough to affect Intel's huge single-core business in 2005. As long as AMD being called a follower instead of a leader, and reactionary instead of proactive doesn't hurt AMD's image or sales then AMD doesn't need to respond. While not a fair portrayal, Toledo is already being called a "counter" to Smithfield by some rather than Smithfield being a response to Toledo or both being developed independently. Expect more of the same if Intel can actually deliver Smithfield ahead of Toledo. digitimes.com