>The bottom line is AMD will fail. They no longer have the means to realistically challenge Intel.
Brilliant trolling, smashp, and only 8 posts! You must have honed your skills elswhere.
>The Company has not made a profit in the last 8 quarters...
The reasons :
1) Poor general economy. You may not have noticed. People who buy Intel chips don't seem to be in an income class that has to concern themselves with such things.
2) Poor sales of all chips in general. Does anybody think even Intel wants to sell CPUs so near to top-of-the-line for under $200?
3) Heavy competition has over-driven CPU performance beyond what the mass market can support. People can buy just about the cheapest computer they can find and it still does everything the average user wants to do. Right now new uses are coming into prominance to take advantage of this windfall. As these uses become commonplace -just because they are now cheap to do- chip performance will begin to lag behind people's desires and chip prices will turn up. The free market is a wonderous thing.
>... and can not continue to compete much further.
Last, but definitely not the least:
4) Enormous investment in the future. AMD is absolutely committed to being a first class company into the forseeable future. They are spending like h*ll on the means to accomplish this. That has major effects on the bottom line. They are not riding the company for what it is worth until bankrupcy is inevitable, as some high- paid corporate execs do. Naive investors have a mistaken notion of what the bottom line means, but there are plenty of experienced investors out there who continue to supply all the vast cash AMD needs. If there were any wiff of insolvency, the money for this would have dried up, because there are plenty of alternative investment opportunities. This means that all those sophisticated bond holders buying AMD junk bonds believe they will get paid. As far as anybody can see, AMD is doing just what investors love: putting their money into capital that should pay a reward for the risk.
BTW, I don't own any AMD investments, at least not that I am aware. My mutual funds may own some AMD; I haven't checked. My only personal interest in AMD is the 4 AMD chips I bought in the last 2 years, each cheaper than the last, but much higher performing. I am like just about all AMD users, who love what they got. Direct investments should be done by people who follow their investments closely and are experienced in evaluating risk.
This forum isn't for explaining investing to people who aren't really interested, and all my posts are already too long, so I'll leave it there.
Except...
I believe AMD will fail. But not within the next ten years. Not before we are completely out of this downturn, have had a boom (hopefully prolonged, like the last) and go into another downturn. Right now it looks like the risky choices AMD made for their next CPU were correct. Even if they are a little early on pressing the SOI technology, investors are future-oriented and AMD will get what they need even if the development might be prolonged. OTOH Intel's strategy bombed. Itanium has the appropriate epithet: Itanic. But Intel's pockets are too deep for the sinking of one little Itanic, or two, to be a major setback. They will put into place alternatives with the P4 label until they figure out how to make an Itanic that floats. I have confidence in Intel.
Some pretty good Intel chips are getting to the point where I'm trying to figure out one economically sensible Intel combo, even going to 3200MHz now. I'd love to have one Intel in my stable, because I haven't had an Intel since they quit making decent Celerons. But I haven't been able to formulate one. It is that calculation on the part of OEMs that insures AMDs immediate continuation.
I recently had an opportunity to spend some time with an Intel system that looked like it had nice specs. An Intel P4 2400 with an Intel motherboard, 533MHz buss, 512M, memory, and 80G 8M cache 7200rpm WD. Slow. I don't get it. I was expecting to be impressed, considering what I have read. My ancient ABIT mobo with 133Mhz memory, 100MHz FSB, and 1400MHz non-XP Athlon is about the same. And my DFI NFII, with 364 MHz (182DDR) memory/FSB and 2000MHz XP (2400+) is hyper-sonic by comparison. I must have been reading too many Intel fanboy posts, distorting my judgement. Either that or you have to be a lot more careful about what you pick in order to get good performance from Intel. I'm sure the Intel system would have had great benchmarks; I just wonder why. IAC I'm feeling rather pleased with myself that I didn't put out the bucks just so I could have one Intel computer.
Have a nice day
Facebook
Twitter