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: gvatty who wrote (247778)	2/13/2008 10:55:49 PM
From: chipguy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

In the early 90's computers didn't seem too much different then the Commodore 64. Yeah not much different. Other than being 32 bit instead of 8 bit and having MMU, FPU, and cache. And capable of executing 8 to 10 million 32 bit instructions per second instead of 200 to 300 thousand 8 bit instructions a second. Practically twins they were.

To: gvatty who wrote (247778)	2/14/2008 12:10:52 AM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: It didn't seem that Intel was in a hurry to get to 1 GHz until AMD got there first. Oh no? AMD launched their 1GHz processor in March 2000. Prior to that, Intel launched the first Pentium II in May, 1997 at 300MHz. They eventually launched 1GHz two days after AMD. That's a 3.3x frequency improvement in less than 3 years, including a new core with the Pentium III in February of 1999. Seems like Intel kept a good pace, even in the absence of a 1GHz Athlon. Re: The two companies keep pushing each other. Yes, no doubt about it, but that's not what I asked. I asked you about the extent to which you think Intel would harm the consumer in the absence of AMD going forward. How high will they increase prices? How delinquent in innovation can they possibly get? Will they ignore Moore's Law? Will they make their products unaffordable? I am trying to gauge the amount to which you think Intel will be harmful. It's clear that you distrust a monopoly, but I'd like to know by how much. Re: Intel's overhead must be much higher now than when they were selling desktop chips at $1000 apiece. Quite the opposite. Intel has equal or better margins today than when they had much greater ASPs. That rather straight-forwardly implies LOWER overhead. Re: How many more fabs do they have now than 15 years ago? Irrelevant. Intel produces about 50 times more CPUs now than they did 15 years ago, not to mention all the other silicon they manufacture - chipsets, communications, flash, etc.