With 90nm perhaps a year away it's not looking good for AMD.
What are you basing this on? Past history? Fair enough, but AMD's upper management is vastly different than a few years ago. Jerry would have lied and denied, but Hector seems completely different. They already confessed to a delay (from Q1 to late Q2/early Q3). I certainly don't blame you for your skepticism, but I'm going to give Hector the benefit of the doubt. If Jerry was still in charge, I would be even more skeptical than you (in fact I would not be invested in AMD at this point), but Hector hasn't done anything yet to make me distrust him. I will feel better if they make further comments in the Q4 earnings conference call on 90nm. If there are any major signs of trouble, I'll be heading for the door.
My 2 worries for my AMD investments to this point were 90nm transition and Prescott. As for Prescott, I was originally expecting 3.6Ghz and increased IPC at launch in Q4 this year with no competition from AMD at the top. With the launch delay, and rumors of lower speed grades, that is looking like less of a threat. I'm sure Prescott at 3.2Ghz will perform very well and probably best in some categories, but it won't be the blowout I was expecting. I'm now anticipating AMD and Intel will be eye to eye in the high end PC market for all of 04. Intel will still have the mobile advantage, and AMD probably gets the nod in volume servers. This makes AMD a safer long term investment than I originally surmised, so I may hold on longer than I planned, or at the very least buy some leaps after selling my shares. It is pretty much in their own hands now to just make the 90nm transition smooth. That does still scare me a bit I must say. It is still too early to say it isn't looking good though unless you have an inside track. Do you know something we don't?
