Replies to post #24108 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[SemiconEng]

Semi and other long time Intel investors-
If I were in your position, I would probably despise AMD (I'm not saying you all do - I just think I would personally). After all AMD forced Intel to lower ASPs, has caused them to rush products out the door, and countless other things that have affected Intel's stock price for the worse. Intel probably would have been another 5 or 6 banger over the last 5 years if it wasn't for AMD. AMD just won't lay down and die.


See, I look at it differently....... I don't want AMD to lay down and die. Not at all. Prior to the period you describe, intel was fat, lazy, and arrogant. Even after AMD wasn't able to make clones after 286, there was a fat/lazy attitude I detected during the K* days, due to well known manufacturing issues with those products, during that time. Intel didn't wake up and smell the coffee until Athlon, and today, intel is neither Fat, nor Lazy. Forget about eliminating arrogant for now, we both know that's not going to happen.

IMO, intel would not have survived at all in today's market being the fat slob it once was, and they have AMD to thank for that, and I think the transformation in the company was nothing short of remarkable. Practically turned an aircraft carrier on a dime. I think, despite the reduced value of my holdings, that the competion from AMD really has been good for intel, despite the stumbles. You learn allot from stumbling.

See how 2 people can look at the same data and see different things?

Semi

[wbmw]

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.

[tecate]

I don't hate AMD and have traded AMD. I don't know if I necessarily think AMD forced Intel to release products out the door - except for williamette. As Intel is so much bigger than AMD and has many other products it can seem that way though. I think a portfolio with Intel and AMD has a place.

While I think your post was a bait, it did have an iota of merit. :)