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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193428)	4/12/2006 11:04:01 PM
From: gzubeck	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I do not think of AMD's products as substitutes to intel but the other way around...Hector's been scraping for so long that he doesn't even know how to market a superior product. An ASP of less than a hundred does not bode well at this point and I don't think Hector knows how to create profitable relationships...I think he's a very good engineer/manager but an awful strategic thinker...

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193428)	4/12/2006 11:20:50 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"The reason AMD increased share in q3 and q4 was that Intel had their chipset shortage" That was their excuse. Chipsets are simpler than processors. They started throwing the chipset card in 2004. It doesn't take over a year to port a chipset design to a contract fab like TSMC. The fact they still haven't done it should be your first clue...

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193428)	4/12/2006 11:32:36 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: The bluff on Hector's part is 30% market share anytime soon. I don't see how intelligent people believe that. But they'll still be billions. Increased market share will not happen unless AMD has products that Intel does not. Certainly AMD would have done it if they could keep up their current performance/price and thermal advantages for the next couple years. Intelligent people know AMD does offer better desktop and server products. A price war will take AMD to loss, and Intel to making fewer $billions. But they'll still be billions. Better tell Intel to stop the rebating and planned price cuts then. As for me I'll be thrilled if billions of dollars of former Intel profits went to OEMs and end users instead. A 10% better performance on F.E.A.R. won't do it. Perhaps you should should suggest that Intel's next ad campaign proudly proclaim their F.E.A.R. performance is only 10% lower than the competitions. The reason AMD increased share in q3 and q4 was that Intel had their chipset shortage, and AMD had the goods to fill the gap. I'm pretty sure Intel won't let that coincidence happen again for a while. It's a darn good thing Intel had those chip shortages then. Without them there would have been overcapacity driving prices even lower. Perhaps you should request Intel mothball a 65-nm fab to maintain price stability.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193428)	4/13/2006 2:02:15 AM
From: FJB	Respond to of 275872

Intel is in such great position that they hit a 52-week low today. You are smarter than tens of millions of other people - talk about delusional.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193428)	4/13/2006 9:02:32 AM
From: UpNDown	Respond to of 275872

Sarmad, I take it back Okay, I take back what I said before about taking back my accusation that you're a troll. You obviously have no understanding about what is happening. Perhaps when Intel hits $16 you'll start to grasp that you don't know squat. I guess you just need to find a little more anger before you come to understand it. Don't bother telling us about Intel's mythical billions in earnings. Check out the change in shareholder's equity from this quarter's report (when issued) against past reports. Shareholder's equity is where the accountants tell you how much your shares are worth. I think you'll find the shareholder's equity per share outstanding declines. That means your shares are worth less, whatever the earnings number. That's what Intel's accountants are telling you, if you just learn to read their message. And don't bother telling me it went down just this quarter, because of market conditions. Check out where its gone over the past few years. As for 10% performance difference here or there, who cares? Most of us don't buy the top-of-the-line processor anyway. Your extra money is much better spent on a couple of fast disk drives, a gigabyte more memory, or higher speed WiFi. What's selling AMD processors is the support for technologies. To this point, that would be AMD64, HT and the integrated memory controller. When the new AMD processors are introduced, you can add AMD-v, Pacifica Virtualization to the mix. AMD's new line will be killers in this respect. And at the conference call they confirmed that the new processors will sell at the same price as the old. So you'll get working, efficient virtualization: run 32-bit windows (whatever variety), 64-bit windows XP, 64-bit Vista (beta, or when introduced), and 32-bit or 64-bit Linux all on the same computer. Simultaneously. AMD does not have the products to take that share. Ha! Just watch us.