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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scarecrow who wrote (58941)	6/27/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scarecrow. It's possible that AMD could eventually become profitable. From the data I've seen, the AMD CPU's aren't all that bad. And it's easier for AMD to gain market share than for Intel to protect market share. When you own it all competition can only drive share down. AMD's ability to achieve profitability is very volume sensitive. With IBM and Compaq et al supporting their products we can anticipate continued AMD market share growth. Also, they are in the earlier stages of production ramp. Can they sell the increasing factory output? There is a point where volume creates profits, even at low margins. And even without profits, they are changing the whole PC scenario. And while they compete with Intel mainly in the low end, this is the fastest growing segment. And their ability to compete with PII is largely one of market acceptance, (brand recognition), particularly in the business segment. Could they gain market share on Intel in this segment? It's not inconceivable. Over time could the market come to view CPU's as generic, commodity products? It could happen. And if the market continues to shift to low priced, (yet rather powerful PC's), this will have a more significant impact on Intel then the competition. From an investor standpoint, it could be that AMD represents a better long term buy. Clearly we've seen AMD's impact on Intel over the past year or so. It wasn't long ago people viewed sub-0's as a toy that only a few PC illiterates would buy. But these toy's are significantly better then the $2500 systems sold a year ago. For the majority of users, (both in the home and in business), these new products function quite acceptably. The need to buy the high end and expensive machines of the past doesn't appear to be quite as dominate any more. And the fear of obsolescence isn't at the level of the past. Mostly, I think, because hardware performance has outstripped software requirements, and there doesn't appear to be new software on the horizon that requires anything more. I know these comments are heresy on this thread, (especially from an Intel long), but I think this forum should be a platform for contrarian views.