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: chipguy who wrote (241471)	9/29/2007 3:08:02 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: IPF/Xeon interoperability on CSI: If the board implemented all performance, RAS, and power delivery capabilities to use IPF processors to their full advantage then it would be too expensive and overkill to use with Xeons compared to a mainstream Xeon board. If it was cost oriented and targeted Xeon CSI mainstream capability then plugging IPF chips into it would deliver much lower performance and functionality than a full featured IPF motherboard. If RAS is a property of the platform, what are the remaining benefits that IPF provides over Xeon? Lower cost, x86(-64) compatibility, R&D dollars, & "tick-tock" are all advantages for the Xeon processor. It's pretty likely that Xeon is at the very least comparable to IPF in raw performance by now... I'd think a boutique x86 platform would benefit both Intel's Xeon and IPF (via volume efficiencies) efforts. Just seems like a re-hash of the idea that got Intel into trouble post-y2k: Hamstringing Xeon to push IPF. fpg

To: chipguy who wrote (241471)	9/29/2007 4:27:07 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Is greater scalability an intrinsic advantage of the IA 64 architecture ? Or is it due to a market segmentation attempt by Intel ? If so, that will give an opening for AMD to exploit. However AMD's ability to exploit any opening is now getting questionable. Hector could have raised boatloads of equity a year ago. But blinded by his own hype he passed up that. Even six months ago the market was willing to buy the "Barcelona miracle" story, and he could have raised a warchest by selling stock. He persisted in not chopping expenses, and plugging the gaping holes in AMD finances. Now it is obvious that AMD cannot be profitable for a few years, and the need for money will be desperate. One lesson any CEO must learn is that the best time to raise money is when you do not need it. When you really need money no one will give you any. Once more stories like tech.co.uk eetimes.com become common, more and more financiers will realize the grimness of the present mess AMD is in, and money will dry up fast.Monopoly Bashing will not raise money.It only highlights the desperation,crippling potential fund raising. Hector did an excellent job in charting AMD thru the downturn in 2002, and skillfully exploiting the opening offered by Intel's poor execution on the Prescott. But his performance during the last year has been atrocious.