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: Yougang Xiao who wrote (48828)	2/6/1999 2:39:00 PM
From: Yougang Xiao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573697

In defense of AMD: JC's perspective post.messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com __________ Does AMD need new management? Submitted by: John Cholewa (jc@chiptech.com) Location:Valley Stream, NY It's silly to say that AMD has been having poor execution or even that they had a bad 4th quarter. If you take a look, AMD has managed to successfully increase their clock speed by about 50MHz every three months over the last year. In comparison, Intel has been stuck at 450MHz (admittedly a higher speed than AMD's offerings, but that's not my point) for the past six months. IDT has been at 240MHz for an entire year, and Cyrix, I think, went up by no greater than 62MHz (from 208MHz to 270MHz) in the last year. AMD's execution has been only slightly short of phenominal. Their only problem was what we are dwelling on now, but this problem didn't even cause them to dip below their MHz ramp. To compare...why is everyone ignoring the problems Intel has had over the same period? Remember the 4-way Xeon flaw? Or the Xeon-450 delay? Or the 2MB Xeon delay (a two quarter delay, I might add)? Perhaps the shortage they had in lower clock PIIs might jog your memory. Or the frighteningly bad performance shortcomings of the original Celeron. Hmmm...wasn't Merced delayed by six months? So was Willamette, but few people know that -- IA-32 P7 was originally slated for the end of THIS year, and now is slated for the end of 2000 or maybe early 2001. So, what did AMD miss out on? They made as many 400MHz chips as they promised, they had a slight Q4 dip in 350MHz offerings. A SLIGHT DIP, compared to the numerous Intel no-shows. As for AMD's fourth quarter, it was fantastic. Not pathetic, fantastic. In the wake of increasing competition at the low end, AMD increased their revenues by 15% from Q3 (Intel only went up 13%) and they increased their earnings from one cent per share to fifteen cents per share. What of the analysts? About a week before AMD's report, the consensus was under what AMD earned for the quarter. In the last week, several analysts jumped their estimates up to as high as $0.30 per share FOR NO REASON, ON NO NEWS. AMD delivered on their promises, for the most part. They shipped out far more chips than initially estimated, and they succeeded in grabbing a whole load of market share. A company that succeeds in grabbing phenominal market share, substantial profit increases, and amazing capacity jumps, all in the face of a competitor that has a market cap fifty times higher, has tons more of R&D spending, and has enough high margin products (a monopoly in such products, I might mention) to fuel a low-end pricing strategy that some consider predatory. The very fact they are managing this screams out to me that the management can stay for the time being. -JC