 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
I bought some AMD stock about 7 months ago...... I am very happy with my purchase....  My avatar for CFC has the AMD logo....
I love AMD honestly... I am fanatical about them, I love their never say die attitude, the way they actually came out with a faster, cheaper chip than Intel in the late 90's. Eventually I hope to own a whole lot more AMD stock, and never let go.
Everyone has their price, and I've marked my sell point, but it is very, very high.
I bought AMD for these reasons (My first stock ever):
1) they produce a product: (I can hold an AMD chip, I will never buy Insurance, banking, or any other "financial" stocks, whose only product is paper with numbers typed on it and memos.... ie Enron.
2) They are in second place: Fighters are in second place. I believe second place is where the most streamlined companies exist. First place = complacency.
3) No defense or Oil stocks..... no way.
4) An AMD fab plant is in Germany. An Intel Fab plant is in Israel. One is much more likely to get bombed than the other.
5) If I ever sell my shares, or some of my shares, it will be to buy a brand new computer, with an AMD chip as the CPU, of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
4) An AMD fab plant is in Germany. An Intel Fab plant is in Israel. One is much more likely to get bombed than the other. |
I don't understand this logic at all.
AMD has one plant capable of producing its chips, and it's in Germany. Intel has many plants capable of producing its chips, most of them in the USA, but one is in Israel. 
quote:
5) If I ever sell my shares, or some of my shares, it will be to buy a brand new computer, with an AMD chip as the CPU, of course. |
AMD, as a company, totally blows. Always has, always will. Every couple years they release a great product and people rally behind them, then they find some way to f*ck it up. It's just part of their history and who they are. 
AMD still posted a loss this quarter, and they're still having trouble meeting demand, and they still lack any big OEM support. Not to mention that the market for desktops is stale and the growing market is in laptops, where AMD's marketshare is laughable and not growing at any rate, while Intel's Centrinos are flying off the shelves...
Notice that the Y-axis is logarithmically scaled, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I don't understand this logic at all.
AMD has one plant capable of producing its chips, and it's in Germany. Intel has many plants capable of producing its chips, most of them in the USA, but one is in Israel.
|
AMD has a plants the US, Japan, and Asia as well. Israel... well secondly, I wouldn't do anything to support Israel. I like Germany alot better.
quote:
AMD, as a company, totally blows. Always has, always will. Every couple years they release a great product and people rally behind them, then they find some way to f*ck it up. It's just part of their history and who they are.
|
AMD did not F up the Athlon, the dot-com bubble burst. Intel went down too.
quote:
AMD still posted a loss this quarter, and they're still having trouble meeting demand, and they still lack any big OEM support. Not to mention that the market for desktops is stale and the growing market is in laptops, where AMD's marketshare is laughable and not growing at any rate, while Intel's Centrinos are flying off the shelves... |
The market for desktops will rebound. And AMD has a cult following that cannot be shaked... and go into a PC parts store.... I bet 3 out of 5 times, if you want a custom made desktop, the guy will want to use AMD. Just my impression of real computer fanatics.
Intel's "market share" isn't growing either... considering the only other contender is the only other chip maker to see any growth... Via.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
AMD, as a company, totally blows. Always has, always will. Every couple years they release a great product and people rally behind them, then they find some way to f*ck it up. It's just part of their history and who they are.
AMD still posted a loss this quarter, and they're still having trouble meeting demand, and they still lack any big OEM support. Not to mention that the market for desktops is stale and the growing market is in laptops, where AMD's marketshare is laughable and not growing at any rate, while Intel's Centrinos are flying off the shelves... |
Ok first just to make biases clear, I'm an AMD stockholder as well, I bought the company because I am confident of their future prospects.
Amd has historically done poorly, but I feel after their aquisition of many former DEC researchers, the people who designed the Alpha microprocessors, AMD stopped being a technological follower.
AMD posted a much smaller loss than analysts expected, I think its highly likely they will post a profit this quarter, and I'll be stunned if they don't do so by the first quarter of next year.
On big OEM support, just what do you think IBM selling AMD Opteron chips are part of their server lineup counts as?! I'd expect general OEM support for the AMD 64 chips to become more visable once they come out in larger volumes, right now many of them are being sold in high end gaming machines from companies such as Falcon Northwest.
On AMD's marketshare, I belive they are esentially doing just fine. What is happening is that the AMD 64 chips are bigger than the Athlon ones, meaning their total production numbers go down, but they command much higher prices. AMD is trouble having meeting demand for the AMD 64 chips since they are flying off the shelves! In the second half of 2004, the situation is going to drasticly change as AMD switches to 90mm technology. Besides allowing higher speeds and the like, this technology it will effectively decrease the size of individual microprocessors by half. This should lead to a doubling of AMD's microprocessor production, and if AMD still has trouble meeting demand, that means Intel is in deep trouble. AMD also potentially has the option of outsources production of some of its microprocessors to IBM fabs to meet demand if necessary.
On Intel Centrino chips, I actually recent read an article saying sales were disapointing and Intel was having trouble persuading potential buyers to purchase them. AMD already has a mobile version of their AMD 64 microprocessor for sale with laptop systems. As volume increases on the AMD 64 line, I expect the processors to start taking up more laptop space.
Finally, Intel has been stumbling recently with their technology. We'll see when the P4EE which was paper launched to try to steal the thunder from the AMD 64 line actually becomes available, but right now Prescott keeps on getting more and more delayed. Right now I'm hearing the Intel may paper launch the Prescott in December, but it won't be until January of February that it is actually released. I don't expect AMD to stand still technologically in the meantime.
Last edited by Mordoch on 28-10-2003 at 13:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
AMD has a plants the US, Japan, and Asia as well. Israel... well secondly, I wouldn't do anything to support Israel. I like Germany alot better. |
The only plant AMD has capable of producing Athlons and Opterons is in Dresden, Germany. Period. The others are for things like PCI-X controllers, Flash memory, other trivial things...
quote:
AMD did not F up the Athlon, the dot-com bubble burst. Intel went down too. |
Well, I would disagree with you. Palomino and Thoroughbred were all thoroughly disappointing. AMD lost considerable marketshare in the past couple years because of this. Blaming it on the dot-com bubble doesn't cut it -- Intel's chips are more expensive and they managed to gain marketshare when the dot-com bubble burst while the cheaper one lost marketshare? Figure that one out. 
quote:
The market for desktops will rebound. |
It's not the point of economics for why it's slumping, it's because they've simply gotten fast enough that only gamers or media-type people need fast computers. The vast majority of computers out there won't be upgraded for a long time, a Pentium III 600 is more than adequate to do what most people want -- and they realize that.
The next step is to give them power on the go, and hence the laptop market's growth...
quote:
And AMD has a cult following that cannot be shaked... |
AMD's cult following is incredibly tiny in the grand scheme of things.
quote:
Intel's "market share" isn't growing either... |
Yes, it is. It went up 5% over last year.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mordoch
Amd has historically done poorly, but I feel after their aquisition of many former DEC researchers, the people who designed the Alpha microprocessors, AMD stopped being a technological follower. |
True. But the major concern now is that they're leading the industry in the wrong direction. Everyone else wants to ditch the 20-year old x86 which, itself, was a a "temporary" ISA from Intel rushed into production as per IBM's request. It wasn't meant to last 2 years, let alone 20+.
Everyone but AMD has agreed to lay to rest x86 and transition to far more modern ISAs -- IBM and Motorola chose PowerPC, Intel chose IA-64, etc. AMD doesn't have the R&D or influence to come up with their own so they modify x86 and tell everyone we need x86 chips in everything.
There is a real concern now that AMD is stagnating technology and performance by clinging on to x86 when everyone else wants to ditch it.
quote:
AMD posted a much smaller loss than analysts expected, I think its highly likely they will post a profit this quarter, and I'll be stunned if they don't do so by the first quarter of next year. |
I recall Sanders promising a profit for Q203, and wasn't that a $500M some-odd loss?
quote:
On big OEM support, just what do you think IBM selling AMD Opteron chips are part of their server lineup counts as?! |
That's true, IBM does sell Opterons.
But that market isn't what I had in mind, indeed it's quite small compared to the consumer market.
How many consumer OEMs do you see actively producing and advertising Athlon-based PCs these days?
quote:
I'd expect general OEM support for the AMD 64 chips to become more visable once they come out in larger volumes, right now many of them are being sold in high end gaming machines from companies such as Falcon Northwest. |
Well Dell has given AMD64 the cold shoulder, Opteron and Athlon in all.
quote:
AMD is trouble having meeting demand for the AMD 64 chips since they are flying off the shelves! |
This is another important point -- AMD lacks manufacturing capacity. So much so that it's actually quite a problem. In times like this where they can make a fortune off their rather-excellent Athlon 64 family, they can't make enough to satisfy demand.
It's another reason why Intel has such an advantage, it always has excess capacity even.
quote:
In the second half of 2003, the situation is going to drasticly change as AMD switches to 90mm technology. Besides allowing higher speeds and the like, this technology it will effectively decrease the size of individual microprocessors by half. This should lead to a doubling of AMD's microprocessor production, and if AMD still has trouble meeting demand, that means Intel is in deep trouble. |
There are major flaws in this logic.
First of all, the 130nm->90nm shrink will only reduce the core by 33% or thereabouts. Second of all, the 130nm process they're on now is quite mature (very mature, actually). When the initial switch to 90nm chips is made, the process is anything but mature -- yields are far lower. At the end of the day they can probably get slightly more chips out at 90nm than 130nm initially, but at higher frequencies.
You also forget that Intel is going to beat AMD to the 90nm punch, along with the new Prescott core. Not only this, but Intel has the advantage of 300mm wafers while AMD is still on 200mm and won't upgrade to 300mm until 2005. 300mm wafers have the benefits of about 30% cost savings compared to 200mm wafers.
quote:
On Intel Centrino chips, I actually recent read an article saying sales were disapointing and Intel was having trouble persuading potential buyers to purchase them. |
I think you're thinking of that TheRegister article.
I've no idea where they're getting their info -- I had to wait a month to get my ThinkPad T40 due to a dearth of Centrino 1.5GHz's.
quote:
AMD already has a mobile version of their AMD 64 microprocessor for sale with laptop systems. As volume increases on the AMD 64 line, I expect the processors to start taking up more laptop space. |
The mobile Athlon 64 competes with the Pentium 4-M, not Centrino.
quote:
Finally, Intel has been stumbling recently with their technology. We'll see when the P4EE which was paper launched to try to steal the thunder from the AMD 64 line actually becomes available, but right now Prescott keeps on getting more and more delayed. Right now I'm hearing the Intel may paper launch the Prescott in December, but it won't be until January of February that it is actually released. |
True, Prescott was delayed til January. The reason for this is this is the first time Intel used a state of the art computer program to lay out components of the CPU to maximize efficiency. Unlike all other CPUs we see, you can't take a die photo of Prescott and draw little boxes over where the FPU is -- it's actually spread out all over a wider area.
The problem with this is that the chip was too efficient at spreading heat, so now everything is more-or-less uniformly hot. Combine this with exponentially worse gate-leakage when moving from 130nm to 90nm, and it's a hot chip. They delayed it so they could get a C-stepping out to bring the TDP down to 90W or so from 100W.
AMD will have to deal with the same thing when they move to 90nm next year.
quote:
I don't expect AMD to stand still technologically in the meantime. |
I do -- the only new products they're launching are rebadged Opteron 1xxs (AthlonFX 43, etc) and an Athlon 64 3400+ -- and Intel will launch a 3.4GHz Northwood to compete with the Athlon 64 3400+.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The only plant AMD has capable of producing Athlons and Opterons is in Dresden, Germany. Period. The others are for things like PCI-X controllers, Flash memory, other trivial things... |
I don't think having any kind of plant... especially a fab plant, in Israel is a good idea. "losing "just one" could be devestating, and Israel seems to like the prospects of WW III, I would just hope all goes well for Israel if an armed conflaguration were to break out, and I were an INTC holder.
quote:
It's not the point of economics for why it's slumping, it's because they've simply gotten fast enough that only gamers or media-type people need fast computers. The vast majority of computers out there won't be upgraded for a long time, a Pentium III 600 is more than adequate to do what most people want -- and they realize that. |
And that is why I love AMD. I have heard "computers are fast enough" before. This argument has no legs. A computer will never be fast enough for gamers, which is still a growing industry. And, I am truly convinced, it is gamers who demand better and fasater chips, who continue to press for more. Then business catches up once they realize what a faster computer can do.
quote:
AMD's cult following is incredibly tiny in the grand scheme of things. |
Merril Lynch started his company by making basic observation of what people were buying, not looking at numbers. I have made my observations, and nearly doubled my money in 7 months. When I bought the stock no-one liked it, but I did. I observed. I shopped around for a chip, and allthough I was an AMD fan, the small shopkeepers were friendly, and AMD lovers. It was like the passion was with them.
quote:
Yes, it is. It went up 5% over last year. |
Hmm... I must be seeing different numbers than you
Intel's market share 2002 Q1 80.8; 2003 Q1 81.7.
Off the top of my head, AMD's market share at it's highest was around 22%.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
I don't think having any kind of plant... especially a fab plant, in Israel is a good idea. "losing "just one" could be devestating, and Israel seems to like the prospects of WW III, I would just hope all goes well for Israel if an armed conflaguration were to break out, and I were an INTC holder. |
Intel has lots of excess capacity, it's not a real concern. If AMD's one CPU producing plant was there, then that'd be a concern. But since Intel has many of them, with the most high-tech of which being state-side, I don't see any cause for concern.
quote:
And that is why I love AMD. I have heard "computers are fast enough" before. This argument has no legs. A computer will never be fast enough for gamers, which is still a growing industry. And, I am truly convinced, it is gamers who demand better and fasater chips, who continue to press for more. Then business catches up once they realize what a faster computer can do. |
I've already said gamers are an exception. But I'm not sure why you think this argument has no legs -- look at the sales statistics for last year.
Desktop sales are flat, Laptop sales are booming, Handhelds are falling.
quote:
Merril Lynch started his company by making basic observation of what people were buying, not looking at numbers. I have made my observations, and nearly doubled my money in 7 months. When I bought the stock no-one liked it, but I did. I observed. I shopped around for a chip, and allthough I was an AMD fan, the small shopkeepers were friendly, and AMD lovers. It was like the passion was with them. |
Shop keepers love AMD because of their slack control on the grey market. Shop keepers have been in love with AMD for years, over that time AMD's stock has devalued.
I think that's a pretty foolhardy way to look at how one buys stock, but perhaps that's just me. Having a great product means absolutely nothing when:
You don't have the production capacity or manufacturing expertise to produce it to satisfy enough demand
You can't win major OEM contracts
You're competing with one of the most well-entrenched brand names in history when you have a reputation for being a "cheap alternative"
You've consistently had shitty stock performance and historically horrible fiscal management
quote:
Hmm... I must be seeing different numbers than you
Intel's market share 2002 Q1 80.8; 2003 Q1 81.7.
Off the top of my head, AMD's market share at it's highest was around 22%. |
My bad, bad wording. I meant last year reported, as in 2002 (2003 is, obviously, not complete). (source)
Intel's market share: 2001: 77.1%
2002: 82.8%
AMD's market share 2001: 21.8%
2002: 15.6%
This was at the peak of the dot-com gloom, too.
Last edited by Asher on 28-10-2003 at 13:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
There are major flaws in this logic.
First of all, the 130nm->90nm shrink will only reduce the core by 33% or thereabouts. Second of all, the 130nm process they're on now is quite mature (very mature, actually). When the initial switch to 90nm chips is made, the process is anything but mature -- yields are far lower. At the end of the day they can probably get slightly more chips out at 90nm than 130nm initially, but at higher frequencies. |
According this site, you're looking at closer to a 38% die shrinkage with the conversion process.
http://www.legitreviews.com/Reviews/64fx_2.shtml
Dropping to 90 nm doesn't help Intel nearly as much. They have plenty of plant capacity, and its incredibly costly if Intel ends up with these plants being unused. The big difference is for a company that can currently supply only part of the market such as AMD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:31
|
|
That sounds very plausible, I knew it wasn't 50%
quote:
Dropping to 90 nm doesn't help Intel nearly as much. They have plenty of plant capacity, and its incredibly costly if Intel ends up with these plants being unused. The big difference is for a company that can currently supply only part of the market such as AMD. |
But dropping to 90nm doesn't help AMD that much, either -- they'll be last to market with it and it'll be a very new and immature process with relatively poor yields. It'll get better over time, but their chips will become larger over time as well.
Intel has lower chip production costs than AMD, mainly due to the 300mm wafers, but also because they'll beat AMD to market with 90nm. Combine this with higher profit margins and far higher brand loyalty than AMD (and exceptional brand recognition), I fail to see how the outlook for AMD economically is all too shiny.
It is my estimation that AMD will hover around 15-25% market share, as they always have, yet again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
recomended speed for C&C Generals: 1.8 GHz..... the games ain't gonna get any slower. The market is just in a slow time, a plateau if you will. Lately I have been wondering if it was time to upgrade my computer, I want to do 3d graphics faster and better. My 1700 is getting old. |
I know game requirements climb ridiculously high. I'm typing this on my few-week-old Athlon 64 3200+, Radeon 9800 Pro, 1GB DDR400 CAS2.
But the point is the PC gaming market is very small in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention that the current trends are towards console gaming, not PC gaming.
quote:
So too has Intels.... But when the rebound comes..... shopkeepers will still love AMD. As a salesman, let me tell you it is very important which company they prefer. |
Ah -- here's the problem I think. The vast majority of people who buy PCs do so from major OEMS -- not local shopkeepers. Local shopkeepers prefer AMD, major OEMs prefer Intel. The major OEMs matter far more, and Intel pretty much has them all locked up. The opinion of the local shopkeeper is rather unimportant as long as the public wants Intel chips, and the OEMs sell the Intel chips.
quote:
George Soros, who I admire said "Never think about it, go with your gut instinct" My gut has done me better than Intel would have. |
For now. History isn't on your side though, you'll lose half your money in about a year if it's any sign of things to come.
And the money you'd make over the past 6 months would've been about equal between INTC and AMD...
Except AMD is far more irratic.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
I chose the chip sector because I believe the gaming industry is ready to put some real pressure on old PCs soon. I chose AMD for alot of reasons, which I have listed. I cannot be the only one who owns AMD stock for these reasons... (except perhaps the Israeli connection, that may be unique). Alot of people buy stock for a host of reasons, and the concept was introduced to me about a dozen years ago when the Pro-life movement was urging people not to buy Johnson and Johnson stock, and pull out of mutual funds that support it. I know that I will buy an AMD chip, and that more people who are obtuse and die-hards with their AMD shares, the more value to the shares outstanding. I had to buy a company like AMD because I need something that I can hold on to, and not try risky day-trading with. I have months of pay invested in the market. I already rode out a small tough time, I am ready to ride out more.
Claimin' AMD till I die!
Oh, and I have nearly doubled my money, so yes, it has made me rich, for now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
--"AMD, as a company, totally blows"
No, AMD marketing blows. But marketing is only one part of a company.
You seem to be quite confused about how company valuations and such go. The kind of losses AMD had this quarter are the kind they can operate literally forever on (well, until all their equipment fully depricates anyway). They've got the cash-flow and they're (IIRC) building up their cash, so the losses are mostly from the accounting.
I do love how you claim AMD sucks and then say they have trouble meeting demand, which would indicate that their products are selling so well they're having trouble ramping production (which is where the IBM Fishkill deal will come in).
As far as Intel goes, for a stock purchase they're probably overvalued (as opposed to AMD, which may be somewhat undervalued). They can only go on this way for so long; one truly bad quarter is going to kill the stock price.
--"and they still lack any big OEM support."
IBM isn't big enough for you?
You're right about laptops, at least for now. PM is a good processor (the rest of the Centrino package sucks; another Intel marketing marvel), but AMD has a A64-M on the way. We'll see what happens.
--"Flash memory, other trivial things..."
Flash isn't really trivial. There's quite a bit of money in that stuff.
--"Palomino and Thoroughbred were all thoroughly disappointing."
For the most part they bested (and then kept pace with) the Intel chips, so I can hardly agree with you here. Espeically since they did it with a much lower cooling requirement... you do know how much power Intel's next chips need, right? ^_^
--"Everyone else wants to ditch the 20-year old x86 which,"
Define "everyone". No business wants to ditch their entire installed software base and buy new software with no record. The main reasons people wanted to ditch the x86 ISA have been largely engineered around; that's why it's doing so well compared to the various RISC architectures around.
It's amazing what a huge volume can do.
--"Everyone but AMD has agreed to lay to rest x86 and transition to far more modern ISAs"
You are so completely misrepresenting things here it isn't funny.
IBM et all have always have other architectures involved, except Intel. You'll note that their ISA has done little to gain traction so far. It's not an improvement on x86 by any means. I don't think we're going to be switching to an ISA that's flat out too complicated for hand-coded assembly any time soon. It's going to be stuck in a niche.
--"How many consumer OEMs do you see actively producing and advertising Athlon-based PCs these days?"
Well, Dell is unlikely to ever do so. None of the others really matter much, although the boutique OEMs that specialize in game machines are.
Dell, btw, won't do it for reasons that have nothing to do with technology. Intel is giving them some good deals to stay Intel-only, and AMD needs at least one more Dresden-level fab before they can make the kind of guarantees Dell's business model requires.
--" it always has excess capacity even."
Not necessarily a good thing, since you've got to pay leases and maintenance and the like anyway.
--"You also forget that Intel is going to beat AMD to the 90nm punch, along with the new Prescott core."
Intel has been seriously messing up their 90nm transition. They're actually planning, now, to release the Celeron versions of Prescott before the full versions (probably because of various process and/or design issues that are causing problems on 90nm). These processors are still going to be running over 100w. Intel is literally reaching the limits of heat/sq mm that can be handled by air-cooling. They've got problems of their own.
300mm wafer cost advantages only apply to bulk silicon, btw. Intel's moving to strained silicon.
--"The mobile Athlon 64 competes with the Pentium 4-M, not Centrino."
Why can't it do both? Artifical market segmentation doesn't matter to the end users.
BTW, I'm just loving the problems the "gigahertz is king" argument Intel has been pushing is causing their laptop sales.
--"The reason for this is this is the first time Intel used a state of the art computer program to lay out components of the CPU to maximize efficiency."
 No, no that's not it. No one outside Intel knows for sure, but check Ace's message board. There's been some interesting discussion there.
--"AMD will have to deal with the same thing when they move to 90nm next year."
AMD is using a different process, partially depleted silicon. They've already transitioned to it and, unlike Intel, haven't tuned their process for speed over all. They've got their power problems under control.
--"and Intel will launch a 3.4GHz Northwood to compete with the Athlon 64 3400+."
Is this anything like their P4 Emergency Edition launch? At best, this will be a few cherry-picked parts, not a mass production binsplit. Intel's releases have drastically slowed lately. Compare the ramp of the P3 and early P4 to the last year.
--"they'll be last to market with it "
You do realize that this means absolutely nothing, right? How many people buying PCs are going to even know what 90nm means?
And don't expect AMD to have as much trouble as Intel. AMD is just doing a process shrink. Intel was trying to do several things at once, including the transition to strained silicon. This is a lot more difficult than what AMD will be doing.
--"The vast majority of people who buy PCs do so from major OEMS "
Local shops or OEMs. Dell being the biggest, of course, but places like Best Buy and Comp USA sell a fair bit too.
Wraith
"Okay, confining my conclusions to the planet earth..."
-- Albert ("Twin Peaks")
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-10-2003 07:59
|