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 (193462)	4/13/2006 1:21:47 AM
From: economaniack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Sarmad, at this point I suspect all the people who can straighten you out have you on ignore, but since I can't do that I will step up. But unless they branch off to their own proprietary architecture, they'll just be a second source. AMD did branch off to their own proprietary architecture. They don't share a socket with any Intel chips, instead all AMD cpus have a built in memory controller. They have a proprietary bus for interprocessor and IO as well. And they run an instruction set developed by AMD and originally not supported by Intel (only after MSFT told Intel to get in line or get f*cked did they get on board x86-64). So what exactly do you mean by a different architecture?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193462)	4/13/2006 1:30:44 AM
From: etchmeister	Respond to of 275872

I just don't see how these intelligent people on this thread can think AMD will defeat Intel in a price war. It's a very dedicated and knowledgable board but they need to take the green tinted sun glasses off :o)) in the long run the more you question your Intel position (based on AMD input) the better. To me the objective is not to convert the protestants to catholics and vice versa I didn't follow price war discussion but price war would require to have good understanding of reducing the cost structure in future because that's the backbone when starting a war. Any cost leverage could only come from Fab 36.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193462)	4/13/2006 1:36:27 AM
From: Joe Senesac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Sarmad, In regards to "being a better copy than the original," I think you have some things twisted. I would describe the implementation of the x86-64 instruction set as being the original, not the copy. So, Intel has become the "worse copy than the original." There is no easy way for AMD to branch off to their own proprietary architecture, truly - and why would they want to? They are in the x86 marketspace. Innovating in x86 capabilities is what will grow their profits. Look at Sun for example. Have they benefitted a tremendous amount from having their own proprietary architecture? Maybe in niche markets, but definitely their introduction of an entire server line based on Opteron tells you what they really felt they needed to do to survive as a company. And why not look at the success (or lack thereof) of Itanium, as a perfect example of what you are suggesting AMD do. I think you also have it wrong about "hatred of Intel and wishful thinking" clouding the minds of everyone on this board. What I see AMD doing quite successfully right now is building a balance sheet that will allow them to become a sustainable enterprise. Opteron/x64 allowed that to happen, AMD was good with that, but then lucky also that Intel seemed to fall behind in their ability to implement a good copy, or even recognize that they were becoming perceived as a technology follower, not a leader. That enabled AMD to gain market share to the extent that they can become sustainable. 15% market share is on the edge of sustainable, IMHO, in this business. Rising substantially above that, to 20% lets say, creates that sustainability. Another factor in regards to sustainability that I think Hector has done is create more credibility towards wall street. Jerry may have hit some home runs, but that also gave him a lot of strike outs. Given a little longer, AMD can become perceived more akin to other tech companies that have more predictable earnings and be accorded higher multiples solely for that reason. That doesn't happen in 1 - 2 years, I estimate more like 3-5. Every post I have read from you so far seems to be biased towards Intel in a way that gives Intel the benefit of the doubt on any given issue, but slams AMD for the same thing. Changes in technology equilibrium are not easy for anyone to predict. Bias only limits the ability to look at the possibilities, and makes predictions such as you are making even less reasonable.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193462)	4/13/2006 8:43:04 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"As I said a while back, I just don't see how these intelligent people on this thread can think AMD will defeat Intel in a price war." Simple. AMD has a lower cost structure than Intel. AMD can thrive on an ASP of under $100, just look at this quarter. Intel would be bleeding a river at an ASP of $120. And it isn't like Intel can do like they have in the past, slash prices in areas where they compete directly with AMD and keep prices high in those markets where AMD doesn't compete. There aren't any markets where AMD doesn't compete.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193462)	4/13/2006 9:59:52 AM
From: Tomcat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

But unless they branch off to their own proprietary architecture, they'll just be a second source. You are a joke! Intel can't even do their own proprietary architecture. Itanium was taken from HP and it is a loser. AMD is back to stay and will continue to be a thorn in Intel's side for many years to come. Hector is ready for any price war and will start one himself if he has to. This will be bad for both Intel and AMD's stock, but it will not kill off AMD. So I think the ball is in Intel's court and they need to decide how bad things get.