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: Jim McMannis who wrote (210492)	9/8/2006 5:02:05 PM
From: DRBES	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

because of apparently severe supply constraints and possibly because Dell may know a good deal more about AMD's actual roadmap than many of the skeptics...some of them actually post here from time to time

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (210492)	9/8/2006 5:05:02 PM
From: DRBES	Respond to of 275872

how would you like to be offered one cornholio for every eight motherboard toasters that you are willing to try to sell

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (210492)	9/8/2006 5:37:03 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

"Why didn't DELL just stick with Conroe?" A question who's answer is no doubt fascinating. Now one analyst has reported that the OEMs don't see that much difference between Intel's new chips and AMD's. And that might actually be the case. Power consumption is similar and so is performance for most tasks. So it all boils down to availability and system cost. With it likely being impossible for Intel to guarantee Dell availability at an attractive price, then...

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (210492)	9/8/2006 5:39:45 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 275872

Jim, Why didn't DELL just stick with Conroe? Dell thinks there are lots of "Anyone But Intel" buyers out there. They might be right. Tenchusatsu

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (210492)	9/8/2006 9:08:48 PM
From: len_chan	Respond to of 275872

Why didn't DELL just stick with Conroe? One word, Opterons. Especially the 4-ways. Dell was hurting badly on the quad CPU servers and there will still be a strong AMD lead for at least another year. Once the "all-Intel" wall was breached, there was little point to not offer AMD across the board. They've broken any special relationship that were was with Intel, so they might as well hedge their CPU supplier bets.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (210492)	9/9/2006 4:37:04 PM
From: Dinesh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Several reasons that I can think of. For one, as Intel loses market share, Dell's overall market share would tend to shrink. And, it's business model (did it have a negative operating cycle?) was being discovered by everybody. Dell had also been trying to diversify its revenue base. TVs (convergence, anyone), gamers, e-commerce, all along the same line of thought. If Dell was not tied to PCs, Dell couldn't be tied to Intel. AMD's star appears to be rising at the moment. Intel, OTOH, is suffering from a bout of executivitis. Major execs can't miss the ball so badly unless they are headed by folks named Ford. And Otellini, sadly, and obviously, ain't a Ford. Thus, AMD had crossed a tipping point and had to be recognized. If you'd recall, Dell had already build relationship with AMD by selling those CPUs on the e-com site. At that time I had commented that this was as good a way to test a key potential supplier without any encumbrances. Going out on a limb now :) I suspect this is the leading edge of a new wave of realignments in the industry (beyond ATI-AMD or Dell-AMD). May be these are the testing grounds, or it may be that the wave is already rolling. If the energy bulls have run their course, that money must find a new parking spot. So what? Well, it could continue to go to more software deals, or it could enter a new arena. Semis seems to be just as good a place given the changing market structure, players and technology. JIMHO - and, probably more wrong than right. regards -d