Replies to post #69503 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[chipdesigner]

sgolds

Your #1 already happened-- as predicted, the runup wasn't much due to any Dell rumors, but rather upwards earnings revisions. (See #3)

As for #2, AMD's 90nm parts are holding their own against Intel's 65nm so far, just like 130nm vs 90nm. And SiGe 90nm parts are coming in a month or two.

#3 Finally, consider that AMD estimates are being revised up. Think about earnings of $1.50/sh in 2006, $2.50/sh in 2007. What kind of forward P/E is appropriate for earnings growth like that? 30? 40?

[bobs10]

you...

1. Any runup due to Dell rumors will dissipate in the likely event this turns out to be only another of the annual Dell/Intel negotiations;

2. Intel seems to be hitting stride on 65nm; the market probably sees this as positive for AMD's process but history argues otherwise - the two processes are so different that Intel's success says nothing about the potential for AMD's success with this technology. Some examples:

me...

Well, I still think the main reason DELL hasn't gone with AMD is that AMD couldn't guarantee to supply the number of parts needed. DELL will continue to flirt with AMD, keeping up the R&D, and possibly doing some boutique kind of projects with channel processors until AMD can guarantee support. That won't happen until at least the end of the 2nd Q. Until then I expect AMD to continue having trouble supplying its' current partners.

As far as INTC 65nm, I think the jury is still out about how good it is. For one thing we don't know if the latest delays have anything to do with 65nm or are design issues. Time will tell. As far as AMD's 65nm process goes, we know even less.

[bobs10]

you...

1. Any runup due to Dell rumors will dissipate in the likely event this turns out to be only another of the annual Dell/Intel negotiations;

2. Intel seems to be hitting stride on 65nm; the market probably sees this as positive for AMD's process but history argues otherwise - the two processes are so different that Intel's success says nothing about the potential for AMD's success with this technology. Some examples:

me...

Well, I still think the main reason DELL hasn't gone with AMD is that AMD couldn't guarantee to supply the number of parts needed. DELL will continue to flirt with AMD, keeping up the R&D, and possibly doing some boutique kind of projects with channel processors until AMD can guarantee support. That won't happen until at least the end of the 2nd Q. Until then I expect AMD to continue having trouble supplying its' current partners.

As far as INTC 65nm, I think the jury is still out about how good it is. For one thing we don't know if the latest delays have anything to do with 65nm or are design issues. Time will tell. As far as AMD's 65nm process goes, we know even less.

[bobs10]

you...

1. Any runup due to Dell rumors will dissipate in the likely event this turns out to be only another of the annual Dell/Intel negotiations;

2. Intel seems to be hitting stride on 65nm; the market probably sees this as positive for AMD's process but history argues otherwise - the two processes are so different that Intel's success says nothing about the potential for AMD's success with this technology. Some examples:

me...

Well, I still think the main reason DELL hasn't gone with AMD is that AMD couldn't guarantee to supply the number of parts needed. DELL will continue to flirt with AMD, keeping up the R&D, and possibly doing some boutique kind of projects with channel processors until AMD can guarantee support. That won't happen until at least the end of the 2nd Q. Until then I expect AMD to continue having trouble supplying its' current partners.

As far as INTC 65nm, I think the jury is still out about how good it is. For one thing we don't know if the latest delays have anything to do with 65nm or are design issues. Time will tell. As far as AMD's 65nm process goes, we know even less.