Replies to post #14430 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[Elmer Phud]

Petz -


Sigh.... I ask myself, why bother?

[wbmw]

Petz, Re: AMD's cost per CPU is definitely lower than Intel's.

No. Your data does not support this. At best, you've shown a scenario where Intel would be break-even if their CPUs sold for $30 less (with 30M in CPU sales - your assumption). However, that's break-even as a company, not in terms of CPU sales. In fact, we know that many of Intel's businesses actually do lose money, which would mean that their CPU business would still be profitable, even with a $30 loss in ASPs (and with your other sales assumptions).

Re: if Intel could only get $120 for their CPUs they would at best be profitless, and at worst have a $1.2B loss. ...
if AMD and Intel both sold their CPUs for the same amount, $150, Intel would be profitless or even have a $Billion loss.

Forget to proof read? Maybe you should get some sleep and revisit this in the morning when you're thinking clearly.

[drjohn]

Petz ; Never try and prove a point by selectively picking data which are not comparable, to claim that the $900 million in revenues is mostly from CPU's is correct but intel also must support thier other divisions communications etc. so your claim that intel needs an asp of $150 to be profitable is misleading. Many here who know better claim Intel can make money with an asp of $30.00 per CPU, I doubt AMD can do any better than that. Selective accounting on a message board is fun, selective accounting while running a bussiness is at the very least proof of incompetence at the most it is evidence of fraud.