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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greg nus who wrote (27201)	12/28/1997 1:43:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

<K-6-233 presented yield problems which are now solved> Wrong, in fact AMD's yields are now worst than ever. <It took Intel five years to get pentium production ramped to 60% yeilds> References please! You're full of it. <Intel will need as much proifts as it can get in 98.> Yes you're right. With all those $Billions in the bank, Intel is in a much worse position than AMD who has pleanty of debt to carry them over in the lean times. Why if only Intel had had the foresite to lose money for years like AMD, they would be in a sound financial position. <Simple ecomomic competition and pricing theory explains that whenever any company reaches monoply like status with abnormaly high profit mrgins it will attract imatators who will take risk trying to emulate the monoply and it's business model. In short if it was'nt Sanders it would be someone else.> Why not K-Mart then? In short, it takes an equivilant process technology to compete in this arenia. It isn't open to just anybody. AMD hasn't been able to produce on an equivilant process technology so they produce at a loss. It would seem that the next generation will be more of the same. AMD will be 1 or more generations behind. Intel will price to choke AMD and AMD will continue to produce at a loss. Same old same old. Keep feeding Jerry, he needs your money. EP

To: greg nus who wrote (27201)	12/28/1997 1:15:00 PM
From: Joey Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573927

Greg, Intel made the right strategic move by cutting PII prices more agressively and frequently than planned. As you pointed out, they didn't have to, but the risks would have been great. Intel does 2 things: assures migration to Slot 1 and seriously hurts the competition. This comes at the expense of Intel profits, but I still think long-term was the right move. BUT, I still don't see how AMD will make any money in 1H98... joey

To: greg nus who wrote (27201)	12/29/1997 12:31:00 AM
From: Time Traveler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

Greg, As you have pointed out on the first serious comment, K6 is a complicated chip. Complexity is indeed relative. P-II is even more complicated than K6. How can you NOT have a vicious chip war against a company that has not yet even hit ramp speed yet? Face it. Jerry's propaganda and his K6 did give Intel management a big scare earlier this year. Intel's goal appears to keep its market share at all cost. So you confidently set prediction on AMD's yield at 60%. The yield of such a subject is going to be so confidential. How would we know that you have hit the jackpot? Can Intel acquire a 49% interest in AMD? Would SEC allow that to happen? Would a chip war break out next year? The chip war is already going on. It is going to escalate next year. How much? It all depends on the manufacturing capability of K6(+)[3D]. Intel has demonstrated that it is not going to let AMD accumulate as much capital to fuel tomorrow's competition. Jerry has proved himself to be a very capable CEO despite his personal mission to go after Intel. AMD's trouble all started after 486 ordeal, and Intel has shown that Intel will keep all that way as long as any one is trying to grab a huge market share from Intel in the x86 market. Hey, these are not my hypothesis but observation. John.