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: jspeed who wrote (210845)	9/14/2006 5:12:25 AM
From: ChrisBBo	Respond to of 275872

If AMD had FAB36 at 100% capacity and a super-duper core at the end of '05 they would be in no better position than they are today. At that time AMD had no presence in the commercial market, about a 11% marketshare in notebooks (still lacking a platform), and could not possibly have more momentum in server share. Without Dell, they were still not in a huge chunk of the desktop market. They were already selling over 50% of the consumer desktops. You underestimate the effects of having a better product and doubled capacity. AMD's server momentum only really took off when they got a clear lead over Intel, which happened when they got to dual-core first. AMD wouldn't have had to sell twice as many chips to keep FAB36 filled - they could simply have ramped dual-core faster - trashing Intel completely in the process. But I don't think taking that route would be necessary, since DELL would have gotten on board back then. Regarding mobile - obviously the chipset situation would be much better if AMD had been able to show off a superior mobile CPU more than a year ago. IMO, the whole "lacking a platform" and "poor mobile chipset support" is a red herring designed to cover up the lack of a competitive mobile CPU. No one is going to design a chipset for a platform where there's no CPU. Why is there an excellent highend AMD gaming platform ? Because AMD had the CPU to put in the platform, and consequently 3rd parties poured their resources into the platform. The same can be said of the server platform. It's the superior server CPUs that has caused 3rd parties to develop an entire ecosystem around them. Torrenza would be a silly stunt, a dead duck, if not backed by the superior CPU. CPU first, platform later. Not the other way around.