SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Paul Engel who wrote (43688)12/21/1998 2:00:00 AM
From: Yousef  Respond to of 1572803
 
Paul,

Re: "AT $120 (Intel) vs. $28 (AMD) - I'm not cringing."

Me neither, Paul ... in fact ... I'm celebrating. <ggg>

Make It So,
Yousef



To: Paul Engel who wrote (43688)12/21/1998 2:01:00 AM
From: Petz  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572803
 
Its sweet to see that the Intel/Ziff Davis "Winstone 99" conspiracy, to overweight L2 cache performance in benchmarks, has totally backfired on INTEL. HA! Maybe now in business Winstone 99.5, they'll add gaussian blur image processing to the business suite, to overweight FPU performance. This will backfire when the K7 comes out!

Petz, very happy I covered those Jan 27.5 calls so my Jan 20's can double again.



To: Paul Engel who wrote (43688)12/21/1998 2:04:00 AM
From: Cirruslvr  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572803
 
Paul - RE: "Intel's COST ARE LOWER - much better yields."

As you have said, show me a link that shows this.

"AT $120 (Intel) vs. $28 (AMD) - I'm not cringing."

I wouldn't either if I was invested in AMD. Lots of upside potential. Right Paul, Mr. fellow AMD investor?