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: TechieGuy-alt who wrote (200258)	6/3/2006 2:05:27 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Anybody that plans to ramp volume on their new process rather than high end- must be extremely confident of their process- not less so. BS. 90nm yields high end, mainstream and low end. What's wrong with 65nm? They don't have to make a LOT of high end parts, but they clearly NEED some ASAP, and apparently they can't make them yet, otherwise they WOULD. If AMD would have performance lead at year's end, then you might be able to make the argument, but they won't. Also, just the fact that they can't ship 65nm until DECEMBER 2006 should tell you something went wrong. It used to be H106, now it is a hair away from H107. Are you going to tell me you accept the niceguy delusion that AMD just feels they don't need 65nm until then? It's fine to be 20% behind in performance across the board? If 65nm is great, where are the Rev G samples with published power and clockspeed? Why didn't they talk about it?

To: TechieGuy-alt who wrote (200258)	6/3/2006 2:23:15 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: With the demise of the clear Mhz as benchmark, there is no easy way for the consumer to determine relative performance. That says it all, and is why Intel's mobile line is having problems competing with Turion. AMD used to have trouble in the marketplace because of all the high ghz - sometimes 64-bit - mobile p4 systems out there. Intel had to kill off mobile P4 because it was making 32 bit 1.Xghz Pentium M and Core look like crap to buyers. But that killed off their biggest defense against AMD, at the same time.