Re: I admire AMD for doing so much with so little.
I admire many things from AMD: taking the risk to design Opteron with a different interconnect topology and integrated memory controller, pushing DDR when Intel went with Rambus, pushing to dual core and making Intel change direction from Tejas to dual core Prescott (Smithfield), offering x86-64 when Intel was pushing 64-bit for IPF only, and many other things. When Intel had a string of bad management decisions 5-10 years ago, AMD was there to set the market on a more practical path. As a result, they built up a reputation of technology innovators, and won respect as an underdog who offered products that people wanted more.
Since 2005, however, I saw Intel begin to get their act together. Although they didn't have competitive products, I saw them delivering to schedule and pushing technology and roadmaps that was destined to be better (coincidentally, much of this happened at the same time Otellini took the helm). Meanwhile, AMD changed their tactics from good execution, to generating hype and empty promises. Many people are waiting to see the next great AMD innovation, but they seem to have run out of ideas.
I especially detest the fact that they promised the world with Barcelona, and when they failed to deliver, AMD apologists come out of the woodwork with reasons why it's so wonderful, while disparaging the products from Intel that are actually winning the benchmarks.
Even more detestable is AMD's proclivity to deny their own failures, and blame all their woes on an Intel monopoly, during a period when they actually had success due to a wonderful product line. In spite of the large amount of controversy on this topic and the good points for either side, I maintain that AMD should go back to good execution, rather than using the Intel's market dominance as an excuse to why they can't compete. I maintain that AMD could compete quite well, if they actually executed on Barcelona, instead of quoting schedules that were impossible, and then rushing a substandard part to market; if they had waited to buy ATI until it came at a more reasonable price; and if they had upheld their pricing structure and ceded market share, rather than follow through with a bloody price war that led to a billion and a half dollars in losses.
I think AMD's worst enemy is AMD at the moment, and if anything, they are accelerating their demise by continuing on the same forceful path.
Yes, I am long Intel and short AMD, but if AMD actually did things that I still admired, I would at least shut up and let AMD long investors (and cheerleaders) bask in the glory. But as it is, I see AMD continuing a long and bloody path with continued mistakes that will bite them farther down the road. That's not because I am cheerleading for Intel; it's because I really don't see anything positive coming out of AMD. And when I see unreasonable optimism for AMD, I'm more motivated to call it for what it is: hype, misinformation, or trolling.
Yes, you've argued positively for Intel in the past, but I think your problem is that you like to argue for the sake of being the opposing viewpoint. I think you thrive on controversy, and since AMD is the Loser at this point, you are happy to cheer for them on the sidelines. If the role were reversed and Intel were languishing, you may take a few cheapshots when it comes to fulfilling your previous "predictions", but I am sure you'd speak in their defense a few times, too.
But that's not the current situation, and it's obviously senseless to debate things when I know you're just going to argue the contrary, regardless of how absurd it is. That's not being adult and engaging in an intellectual debate. It's just senseless and irritating, especially when most of us here are for the purpose of investing, rather than debating for the sake of the argument.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
