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: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (57691)	5/9/1999 7:51:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1573694

Thanks for your intelligent comments, Tad. Tenchusatsu

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (57691)	5/9/1999 8:10:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573694

Tad - I would love to see your analysis in some other sectors, to see if your model is consistent, that is, always rooting for the second tier just because there is a first tier. What I personally find lacking in your specific analysis with regard to the current topic is you tend to assign Intel static attributes, and fail to acknowledge the resources and talents at Intel's disposal, i.e., "if AMD does this, they will be here", as opposed to "if AMD does this, Intel may respond in this manner". Were you saying the same thing about AMD with the Introduction of the K6 iterations? Look how far that got them financially, and observe how Intel responded to the competition with market segmentation, the Celeron, and more recently, the Whitney board. Out of curiosity, how do you explain Intel actually doing something in the face of competiton? By your model, because AMD produced 5 million K6 units in x quarters, they should be reaping the rewards of taking on the Gorrila, no? Hasn't happened, and Intel is a better company for the experience. Now we have the next Great White Hope in the form of the K7, and I read your analysis of AMD, and find that generally omit scanarios in which Intel could respond to the competition, and come out better for it. BTW, since you acknowledge you've been around for so long, hasn't there always been some form of competion out there that was going to reduce Intel to shards? That's the way I recall it, and it hasn't happened yet. So if I would have listened to the guys like you, I would have likely missed out on all the growth INTC has generated, and my kids would most likely be without the college fund that is enjoyed today. Just my opinion and my experience Tad. Who knows, maybe you;r're right, and the K7 will roll out, and Intel will be helpless to stop the carnage :-)). I think not. PB

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (57691)	5/9/1999 9:43:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573694

Tad - Re: " you would be making some really big assumptions (that AMD has always screwed up and therefore always will, and that Intel doesn't screw up and that people will always be willing to pay a premium for that record" Indeed, you have described the history of Intel and AMD over the past 15 years to a TEE. Not that Intel doesn't have screw-ups - Intel has enough irons in the fire to insure that any one program glitch can be "smoothed over" by other businesses and projects. AMD shoves all its prayers into one prayer basket and goes for broke - and they usually go "broke" - as they are living on borrowed money. By the way - allow me to correct a factual error in your post: "I've also seen Jerry Sanders make AMD a $3 billion company ..." Sanders has NEVER reached that milestone. The highest AMD ever got was $2.54 Billion last year - 1998. With revenues DOWN $150 million from Q498 to $631 million this quarter and the sale of Vantis stripping $141 million (3x $47 million) over the remainder of this year, AMD may have BIG TROUBLE matching last year's $2.5 Billion in sales. Paul