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: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 12:12:01 AM
From: gzubeck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, you make yourself sound so sweet...ahhhh...and Intel is this really kind company ....ahhhhh...I feel so warmed over and comforted...thank you..why don't you just give me some of those celeron d's intel just came out with that they're comparing to Athlon XP's...ahhh... once again comfort...thankyou! Intel has this really big bank account that they keep going around with and bribing all of AMD's customers with to not do business with AMD...I wonder if this is legal...if AMD had to match Intel's offers they would go out of business...I guess we'll have to let the courts sort this out...;>)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 1:06:55 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer Re...If Intel subpenas AMD's yield records I believe there is a strong likelyhood they can easily demonstrate yield problems which means AMD has been supplying all the product they can make. How could Intel be preventing sales AMD was incapable of supplying? AMD is wide open to exposure on this one. What a brilliant post. I bet Intel's lawyers wish they had thought of that, so they could have responded with more clarity and sanity, to AMD's lawsuit, instead of the feeble answer they gave. There seems to be only one small fly in the ointment with your brilliant deduction. Why the hell was Intel using illegal means to stop AMD, when all Intel had to do was tell them, the chips AMD was selling were actually vapor, and while they seemed real enough, they were just Chinese knockoffs. Why on earth would Intel go to the lengths they did, having Barret himself threaten OEMs, when all he had to do was relax, and watch AMD make fools of themselves. Guess what, the joke appears to be on Intel, as according to you, Barret threatened all of those OEMs for nothing. On second thought, perhaps you shouldn't bring it up, the next time you visit. They could get a mite upset over the good news. I've been thinking about things and trying to understand this lunatic act of desperation by AMD. What drives a company to such extremes? Have you ever thought about cutting it out before you seriously hurt yourself. That is the advice I give my men when they come up with such brilliant schemes.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 2:08:48 AM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

You're reading it wrong. Anticompetitive behavior by a monopolist is not excused by any supply constraints any of its victims may have experienced. It's still illegal. In one sense, you are right about it having something to do with 65nm. Fab36 will radically increase AMD's capacity. By filing the suit, they immediately chill Intel's illegal behavior at a crucial time for their expansion.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 2:21:11 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, LOL. You start with an incorrect assumption, then you go on a tangent so far that you are about to leave the solar system. Where you go wrong in your assumption is that AMD charges have no merit. Correct that assumption, think about it, and come back. You will be back with a much better understanding of why AMD filed the complaint. Joe

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 2:47:29 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, Re: it was brought out that Intel's 65nm process has higher drive strength and only half the leakage current of what IBM has described.> I must have missed that. I went poking around intel.com and didn't find anything that looked like that. Do you have a link I can read? -tgp

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 2:54:29 AM
From: DDB_WO	Respond to of 275872

ephud - it's not only the volume (should be too difficult to produce 30-50% more CPUs, if all CPUs were using small K8 dies with 128 or 256 kB L2), but also the price. The values presented about the 65nm transistors don't tell everything about the processes. There are missing data for slower low leakage variants or even faster high leakage variants etc. It's currently not the case, that all transistors on a CPU like those from Intel, IBM, AMD etc. are of the same type and it won't be the case in the future. IIRC, Intel's 90nm process also had better values than AMD's base PDSOI process. Matthias

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 7:03:37 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: I've been thinking about things and trying to understand this lunatic act of desperation by AMD. What drives a company to such extremes? You sound like Jeffrey Dahmer complaining that one of his victims tried to escape. Read the complaint. Intel is a criminal outfit and needs to be stopped before it commits additional crimes. If you don't see that then you're just as much an economic sociopath as they are (or else you're a paid apologist).

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 7:12:53 AM
From: aleph0	Respond to of 275872

// I've been thinking about things and trying to understand this lunatic act of desperation by AMD. What drives a company to such extremes? // Replace AMD with Intel, and the question makes MUCH more sense ! Why?.. because Intel cannot compete on the merits of it's products alone since Athlon-XP and AMD64 came out . // I believe it has a lot to do with 65nm and the new fab that will come on line next year. // Then you'd believe anything ! Intel has shown ME at least that their 90nm. process isn't good at all. I laugh when they talk about 65nm ! LOL! // Additionally I think AMD has had a peak at Intel's roadmap. // LOL! .. no comment !

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (163346)	7/1/2005 8:58:32 AM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, Are you still claiming that AMD's 90nm process is worse off than Intel's as AMD's is based on the IBM 90nm process that was behind the Power PC issue that caused APPL to miss all kind of performance milestones? Has AMD demo'd a working 90nm RAM chip to your satisfaction yet? You go about claiming bias, prejudice supposition on the part of AMD supporters, then you come out which this "I'v been thinking" post that contains nothing but bias, prejudice and supposition in favor of Intel. By your own definition- makes you an Intel droid. If all you say is correct, Intel has nothing to fear. AMD will make a laughing stock of itself in the legal process and the press that follow this case. R-E-L-A-X. TG P.S. I think I see fear in Intel's eyes and their supporters. You are going through a lot of self-justification because most of Intel's "window dressing" re. anti-competitive behaviour (like "training" for their sales folks in anti-competitive behaviour was based on pulling the wool over a govt threat of a Sherman act lawuit- not on AMD's well documented lawsuit). Now everyone in Intel is goving over the last 5 years and asking themselves, "where all did I go over the line and how much could have been documented? What emails did I send?