HM, competition is good.
AMD used to be the kind of company (under the rule of Sanders) that would sacrifice profits and cash to "beat Intel", and more often than not, they mostly ended up bludgeoning their face against Intel's boot. AMD today is a better company with good products, and they do a fine job of pushing for innovation.
Right now, the market is back to a boom. Intel won't lose ASPs because of AMD; rather, if ASPs decline (and keeping in mind that their current ASPs are allowing record quarters of revenue), it'll be because of bad execution, probably on the part of management.
I've said it ever since I learned of the Hammer core: I just don't think it has anything special that Intel couldn't beat. Neither the integrated memory controller, the Hypertransport interface, nor the 64-bit capabilities could outperform Intel if they had been on time with Prescott and able to ramp their 90nm process last year.
Intel's delays may be costing them millions in potential dollars, and it's the best thing to ever happen to AMD. Both companies are great innovators and each are capable of great products, but I think with Intel's size and resources, they should be able to do a lot better. That's why I don't have anything against AMD. They deserve to reap the fruits that they have sown, while Intel has the opportunity to return to the drawing board and fix what's broken. As an Intel investor, I hope they assuage my concerns sooner rather than later, but as an AMD investor, it serves as an excellent opportunity. Just MHO.
