Replies to post #39174 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[KeithDust2000]

chipguy, seems one can come up with hundreds of possible reasons for this. And most of them are valid to a certain degree. Not easy, at all. And it seems the history part always speaks against AMD, no matter what the subject ;-)

[winemkr]

Chippy, the shorts can cover both sides of their buys.

It has nothing to do with your fantasy of AMD falling off the technology ledge and everything to do with a small company battling a, ah, watchamacallit, oh yah, 800 pound gorilla.

The BS has been talking and doing no walking on the intel side since Sledgehammer was a plastic mallet in a toys are us toolkit (recommended ages 2 to 5).

Don't forget potato chip. AMD's upside doesn't even have to be a glimmer in intel's eye. It just has to happen...you know, just like Opteron adoption is happening.

Regarding AMD's historical track record, well, I'm no "chipguy", but it seems to me that grantsdale (recently) and the rest... et al have had a few problems for the past few years.

[sgolds]

chipguy, the historic record for the last decade is about 50-50. Intel had a bad 90nm, good 130nm, bad 180nm, good 250nm

Oh - you mean AMD. Also 50 - 50. Bad 130nm, good 180nm, bad 250nm, so far 90nm looks promising.

Funny how the two companies alternate on process geometries.

(Of course, Intel has more cash to ride out the bad process shrinks.)

[fastpathguru]

AMD is coming up to "product talks, BS walks" time
on a critical process transition. What's the historical
track record?

Just read the reviews to get an idea about how AMD's products stack up, even without the imminent process transition which will improve performance, power consumption, AND overall output.

Have you not been paying attention?

fpg

[yourbankruptcy]

chipguy, so far 130 nm AMD chips are trashing 90 nm Intel chips by 2-3 speedgrades.

They don't need 90 nm to match the Street consensus. Only to beat it.