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 (48982)	2/8/1999 10:50:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580483

<AMD prices were'nt weak last qtr. they did'nt make enough chips but stop right there.> Perhaps you missed the news last quarter that AMD's average selling price was well below their $100 target. Sure, they made up somewhat with higher volumes, but that wasn't enough to boost their lackluster earnings. <AMD pumped out 5.5 million chip during the last qtr. That's 21 mill with no increase in ramp in an underramped fab.> Though I doubt the fab is "under-ramped", I'll agree that 5.5 million chips is a remarkable accomplishment. <Also all the trade mags show the performance of AMd chips to be on par with Intel pentiumii.> Define "on par." According to Tom's Hardware Guide, the K6-2 400 MHz had a Business Winstone 99 score that was "on par" with a Celeron 366, and unfortunately that was the closest AMD got. Check out the link yourself: www5.tomshardware.com Of course, you can argue that the average consumer isn't going to care about a two-point difference on the Winstone 99 scale. <but when you balance your check book I defy you to show me its slower> Well, if that's all people buy computers for, then I guess I really can't argue with you. Tell me this, then. Why should Mr. Consumer buy a K6-2 400 when a Celeron 366 is cheaper and can do just as good a job? If the performance difference is negligible, especially for those mundane "checkbook balancing" tasks, then why should Mr. Consumer buy a K6-2 400 when that nice cheap K6-2 333 is all he needs? Why not a Cyrix M-II PR333? Scumbria once said (repeatedly, I might add) that for most tasks: Pentium III = Pentium II = Celeron = K6-2 = K6 = MII If that's the case, then what value will the future K6-3 or K7 hold for AMD? You see, there are still many consumers out there who do care about performance and are willing to shell out hundreds of dollars more to get it. Intel is already there, and AMD is trying to overtake Intel with the K6-3 and the K7. Until then, the only advantage AMD has over Intel is price, and even that advantage is disappearing thanks to Intel's price cuts. If people truly prefered AMD's products over Celeron regardless of price, AMD would not feel the need to cut prices in response to Intel's price cuts. Tenchusatsu