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 (238237)	8/6/2007 2:18:57 PM
From: wbmw	Respond to of 275872

Re: Sandtiger. LOL, you mean the fictitious part AMD put together some foils on, based on Intel's Nehalem slides? I doubt it's a fictitious part, but it's clearly AMD's response to Intel's tick-tock strategy to have another core ready in 2 years. My point was that it's too far off to care about, and if AMD is already claiming 2009, that's suspect, too. It's not as if Intel is sitting still during this time frame, either. AMD's immediate concerns should be how fast they can make their 3.0GHz demo into a production worthy part, whether they can close the IPC performance gap relative to Conroe, let alone Penryn, and whether they can compete in price, given their yield issues and larger die size. They seem to have the perfect recipe for disaster with Barcelona, but of course others on this thread will argue, claiming that AMD has been hiding the benchmarks not because performance is embarrassing, but because they want to cause Intel to become complacent and/or come out with a big bang. I think there has been enough evidence to suggest that this latter hypothesis may have issues standing up. At least a few people here seem to notice the handwriting on the wall, though....