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 (214904)	10/25/2006 2:13:18 PM
From: jspeed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Now things are back to the point where they don't really need to. I disagree. From the OEM perspective, PC prices have gone down the past 5 years yet Intel's ASPs have not. Consequently, OEMs have to accept lower margins because Intel has been effectively the sole source of the CPU. It makes good business sense for OEMs to have two or more suppliers. They make more money and they have to take on less risk. Dell still needs to use AMD (and Intel)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (214904)	10/25/2006 6:13:08 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

So you agree that if AMD's SPECint and SPECfp outperforms Intel's when K8L is released and this lasts six months, that DELL should drop Intel entirely from its lineup? re: <<Dell is getting killed competitively selling Intel only.>> <The trouble is, that's mostly a "was" at this point, and will be getting more so over the next 2-3 quarters. They needed to do it years ago. Now things are back to the point where they don't really need to.> :^) Petz

To: dougSF30 who wrote (214904)	10/25/2006 11:48:12 PM
From: len_chan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

At some point, AMD's success means that Dell begins to lose sales by not carrying AMD across the board. A lot of companies want to standardize on vendors, CPUs included, since it makes testing software configurations a little bit easier. In the past, that meant all-Intel. However, now that AMD owns the 4S server space (OK, maybe now they're just extremely competitive), Dell ran a real risk of losing desktop and laptop sales. Dell might as well offer AMD everywhere now that the Intel marriage (and associated benefits) is over. It gives them a good hedge against whatever future the chip market brings. While I was a little surprised to see a 2S server announced this week by Dell, I expected it sooner or later. Ditto for Turions.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (214904)	10/26/2006 5:49:52 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

The trouble is, that's mostly a "was" at this point, and will be getting more so over the next 2-3 quarters. They needed to do it years ago. Now things are back to the point where they don't really need to. You act like you were in on all the negotiations. In reality, you have no clue how things transpired. Perhaps Intel cut off Dell's preferred status and all/some of its benefits first.... hoping/praying for only limited retribution.What would Intel's quarter have looked like if the full scale Dell payola program was still in place? So perhaps Dell was forced to reply with an AMD deal. You simply can not allow Intel to bluff its way to a position of advantage. If the reported 20+ million CPU/yr AMD deal is true.....it would appear that Intel got its deserved response......two eyes for an eye....teeth for a tooth. THE WATSONYOUTH