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 (199638)	5/31/2006 9:49:50 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Relative perf and perf/W of competing products (high-end, and more importantly, sweet-spot) is HARDLY a "few trees" when it comes to the CPU business. It's practically irrelevant. For how long has AMD had a 50 to 100 watt power advantage and up to a 50% performance advantage? And what difference did it make until they started putting some serious capacity into place and sued Intel for extorting customers? What's Core's power advantage going to be? 15 watts? Zero watts? What's Core's performance advantage going to be? 20% in a few cases? I'm hard pressed at work to detect any difference between my 4800+ X2 and the Opteron 146 it replaced. Things either happen just about instantly or they're waiting on network or disk - just like on the old Opteron. Dual core doesn't seem to make any difference, either. This isn't good news for AMD, but it's worse news for Intel. The biggest risk to AMD is that there will be a brutal price war, but AMD is in a lot better shape to face such conditions than Intel is. AMD will be able to supply nearly half the CPU market with barely 10,000 employees (remember that Spansion's gone). Intel will have to pay 75,000 to supply the other half (I deducted 25,000 of their 100,000 employees to account for their flash and other non-CPU businesses). AMD is able to do with 9,860 employees what Intel needs nearly 100,000 to do. I think Intel is totally screwed, and that AMD will reap the benefits of gaining significant control in the CPU market.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (199638)	5/31/2006 10:18:10 PM
From: firthoffourth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Even if that were to happen, right away, Intel shrinks to 45nm and pulls away again, and AMD is stuck on 65nm through 2008. Actually, according to the rumour site roadmaps you've been citing today, AMD will be starting the conversion to 45nm mid Q1 2008. Relative perf and perf/W of competing products (high-end, and more importantly, sweet-spot) is HARDLY a "few trees" when it comes to the CPU business. sure Doug, you can keep ignoring price, AMD's customers won't - neither will the end users for that matter. The "enthusiast market" is peanuts compared to the value/mainstream where AMD WILL be able to compete on price/performance and still grow revenue and earnings. How about a permanent performance advantage? :) Right.....that's likely....and actually, if it was say 10% it wouldn't matter unless they brought their cost structure in line with AMD's. Did you see the reports that Intel are cutting 16K from their workforce? ('are' just for TGP :) ) It would be interesting to see the market's reaction to that considering Andy Bryant just told the entire investment community that they could reduce costs without any active head count reduction. I suspect a 1.5 billion dollar cash charge would result in a significant loss and quite a sell off for the stock.