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: Bill Jackson who wrote (56173)	4/24/1999 10:17:00 AM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571055

Bill, Re: "AMD's losses are Intels doing, not AMD's. How dumb can you get." With AMD's 25% below Intel pricing "strategy", you are the one that sounds a little "dumb" ... and ... maybe numb. <ggg> Make It So, Yousef

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (56173)	4/24/1999 10:28:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571055

Jackson - Re: " AMD's losses are Intels doing, not AMD's" Always blame somebody else for your failure, eh Jackson ? Intel's fault? Is AMD a victim ? Poor, poor AMD. Because Intel has great yields, AMD is mistreated in the marketplace since they can't make a profit ! Because Intel's CPUS run at fast speeds, AMD is damaged by Intel because AMD's chips are slow and need to be JACKED UP in voltage ! Hey - SCUM bria claims AMD has better engineering than Intel ! Maybe you should try and outlaw successful companies so the failures can have a chance ! Paul

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (56173)	4/24/1999 6:30:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571055

Bill and thread, re <<AMD's losses are Intels doing, not AMD's. How dumb can you get.>> Our free market economy is extremely competitive and it punishes for mistakes very severely. Intel business practices have been very harsh and perhaps legally questionable. But the fact of the matter remains that if AMD wants to compete with Intel it better fight back. AMD has poor yields and been late to the market every time. These are AMD's fault and completely unrelated to Intel. If AMD could yield properly and had delivered on their dates promised, they would be profitable. All these past failures are into the stock price. As you know AMD has a market cap 1% of the one INTC enjoys. It is also trading at only 1X sales which is very low for such high tech company. The street thinks very little of AMD (for good reasons). However all these problems provide an explosive upside potential if they can deliver with the K6 III and K7 and then the K8. On the positive side, AMD has in some ways delivered with the K6-2 and increased its market share by 3 folds during the past year or so. They are also expanding into the business market and OEM's are on board. They have decreased the performance gap and are about to eliminate it with the K7. They are improving their process technology and beating Intel to copper process (an inevitable step). I like the trend and I am betting on it. As big as these accomplishments are, they are clearly not enough to over take Intel, not even close. AMD has a whole lot work to do with great risk in every step. As an investor you must decide whether or not you like the risk to reward ratio. My answer is yes, Paul's and Yousef's is no, and yours is apparently yes. I consider both of them smart (not necessarily polite and civil all the time) but I disagree with them none the less. Mani