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: j3pflynn who wrote (229946)	4/14/2007 4:27:39 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

j3p, Re: Doug - Agreed re: Pete's statement, > Ok, you lost me right there. What part of Doug's statement are you agreeing with" Doug's post in which he included no statement from Pete. AMD will not convert production 100% to 45nm anytime soon either. They have committed to produce certain 90nm Opterons for at least 5 years. Even looking at a more reasonable question, say, 90% of output on 45nm, I have no doubt Intel will be there first. Pete's original claim was (surprise) false. Taking the statement in parts: AMD will not convert production 100% to 45nm anytime soon either. True but irrelevant. They have committed to produce certain 90nm Opterons for at least 5 years. True but Irrelevant. Car manufacturers are mandated, in the United states, to have an estimated adequate supply of spare parts available for 10 years after year of manufacture. Anyone who thinks these parts are still on a production line is crazy. Even looking at a more reasonable question, say, 90% of output on 45nm, I have no doubt Intel will be there first. But Pete wasn't looking at what Doug says is more reasonable. Pete stated 100%. Doug's changing the rules of the argument then saying it applies. It's the Intel way of doing business. You can read all about that method of argumentation in "Inside Intel". Now, Paul, with what did you agree? -tgp