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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (58180)	5/14/1999 8:46:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571811

Re: "The question isn't "Can AMD sell everything they make?" because we all know the answer to that question. Rather, we should be asking "Can AMD sell everything they make and make a profit?" That has always been the point! Those who proclaim "AMD sells all the processors they can make" always fail to make that distinction. AMD sells all they can make only because they are willing to sell below cost, not because there is any great demand for AMD products. If this were a sellers market, AMD would hold the price up and someday make a profit, instead AMD must dump their products at a loss, just to stir up interest. The continuing drop in price indicates a continuing drop in interest. EP

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (58180)	5/14/1999 9:56:00 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571811

< So why should Intel drop prices in the first place, if it's clear that AMD will do whatever it takes to keep marketshare, even at the expense of profits? Shouldn't Intel just keep prices high, give AMD some breathing room to make a profit, and let everyone make money and be happy? No, because it isn't that simple. How does the saying go, "Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile?" Let's say, for example, that Intel holds prices steady for a while, allowing AMD to keep its own prices at a healthy level. It would then become much easier for AMD to low-ball Intel in the future by, say, charging extremely low prices for the K7. Then the battle in the PC market could turn ugly once again.> So you think it makes more sense for Intel to weaken AMD until a stronger company acquires them? How will then Intel have easier time with K7 produced by TI or IBM? Please explain.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (58180)	5/14/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1571811

Tench, Re: "I think it's quite clear now that Intel is the one in control of the pricing structure. Most of us can agree on that." I respectfully disagree. The pricing is driven by Mhz and performance. Currently INTC is the MHZ champ and FPU performance champ so they get to set the low end pricing by using profits from High MHZ chips. If the K7 comes out as advertised the roles can reverse easily. The Celeron vs K6-2 pricing shows clearly that even though the Celeron is an INTEL chip, has HIGHER performance than an equivalently clocked K6, it sells for basically the SAME price. The users will buy K7's in droves if the performance and Mhz are right. Intel can price their chips for much less than the K7's and the K7's will still sell as there are lots of folks who want the fastest highest performance chip. And Intels response will be 600Mhz coppermine with RDRAM with camino chipset. The latest info on CAMINO is that it still HASN'T taped out yet. Samples are expected in JUNE. It certainly doesn't sound good for CAMINO and RDRAM production in Q3/Q4 IMHO. And for a high end system with 128/256Mb of RAM the RDRAM price differential alone will be several hundred dollars in cost. No wonder INTELs stock is weak. I suspect the smart money is exiting as we speak. Regards, Kash