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 (58722)	5/19/1999 9:00:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583323

Tad, As such, they represent a trend that has deeper implications deserving much more serious discussion than some of the trash-talking that is offered by the zealots on both sides of the AMD-INTC split on this thread. More condescension to start the day with? Are you making the bold suggestion that PC and CPU prices are going down? Scumbria

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (58722)	5/19/1999 10:00:00 AM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583323

I am out of my INTC today. Since Monday, when I became aware of the June price cuts, I have been thinking that Intel may not be trying to kill off AMD and the response to me seemed to be a realization on Intel's part that AMD is real. I think by going aggressively after pricing they now are setting themselves up for a prolonged period of low ASPs. The time for lower ASPs was a year back when AMD was just starting to show signs of life with the K6 - now the cat is out of the bag. I have concluded that Intel does not know how to respond in a CPU market where they are not the only player (of consequence, I mean). Intel management should probably take lessons from other folks in semiconductor and other industries where they know very well how to compete with one aggressive competitor. In any case I do not care anymore now - I am now out of INTC. Chuck

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (58722)	5/19/1999 10:15:00 AM
From: Joey Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583323

re:As such, they represent a trend that has deeper implications deserving much more serious discussion than some of the trash-talking that is offered by the zealots on both sides of the AMD-INTC split on this thread. - Tad LaFountain As usual, you & other analysts ignore Intel's COST side of the equation. Operations is Intel's true, sustained competitive advantage. Is it just ignorance on your part, or your bias against Intel??? joey

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (58722)	5/20/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583323

Tad - Re: "one thing jumps out - if, as all reports indicate, yields have moved up at all speed grades, and if AMD's MPU ASP was $78 for 1Q, doesn't the price data mandate higher ASP for 2Q?" No Tad. I'm surprised at you. You need to know the VOLUMES of each speed/price grade as well as the price to figure out an AVERAGE - i.e., ASP. The volumes of AMD's 450 MHz K6-2 and higher are small - and the Kmart 63's are not even on anybody's radar screen. Paul