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: neolib who wrote (156147)	4/13/2005 7:54:52 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

neolib I for one think this is yet another blemish on the financial team at AMD. The stock can't shine unless management can be trusted for one Qtr foresight. You haven't been following this company for very long have you? If you had you wouldn't be so surprised.

To: neolib who wrote (156147)	4/13/2005 8:00:56 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

They met official guidance: CPG revenues "flat to down slightly", Flash revenues "down". Yes, they missed Rivet's answer on whether he thought they would be profitable. But in this case, it was better to deliver the remedy (Spansion spinoff) with the news. The rest of your post is just odd. Of course the CPG division is still "up against Intel". So? Why do you think Intel having "the early 65nm lead" will impact AMD's CPG financial results in 2006? Having "the early 90nm lead" didn't really do much for Intel in 2005, did it?

To: neolib who wrote (156147)	4/13/2005 8:53:43 PM
From: gzubeck	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

What lead...Intel needs 65nm now so they can compete with AMD's superior 90nm tech and processor design as they need a larger die to compete...AMD's 90nm yields are better than 130nm...