AMD's response

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
This quote sums up the attitude that I don't like about Intel, and its fanboys for that matter:

I think that the biggest problem Intel has is not the color of its logo or its byline but its culture. I think that Intel executives refusing to attend a meeting, for example, if AMD is on the menu, or on stage, is just simply pathetic, but it happens time and time again. I don?t think that a company that?s worth US$120 billion or more, that?s one of the top Fortune 500 companies, should ever condone that kind of behavior, and I don?t understand why Intel is not welcoming free and open competition, especially from a much smaller competitor.

I agree...a true mark of a great company!!! :roll:

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
This quote sums up the attitude that I don't like about Intel, and its fanboys for that matter:

I think that the biggest problem Intel has is not the color of its logo or its byline but its culture. I think that Intel executives refusing to attend a meeting, for example, if AMD is on the menu, or on stage, is just simply pathetic, but it happens time and time again. I don?t think that a company that?s worth US$120 billion or more, that?s one of the top Fortune 500 companies, should ever condone that kind of behavior, and I don?t understand why Intel is not welcoming free and open competition, especially from a much smaller competitor.

But of course their engineers are an exception to your criticism right?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Markfw900
This quote sums up the attitude that I don't like about Intel, and its fanboys for that matter:

I think that the biggest problem Intel has is not the color of its logo or its byline but its culture. I think that Intel executives refusing to attend a meeting, for example, if AMD is on the menu, or on stage, is just simply pathetic, but it happens time and time again. I don?t think that a company that?s worth US$120 billion or more, that?s one of the top Fortune 500 companies, should ever condone that kind of behavior, and I don?t understand why Intel is not welcoming free and open competition, especially from a much smaller competitor.

But of course their engineers are an exception to your criticism right?

I like their engineers...Bet they are good ppl....Just the higher ups have ran that company like a thug with sketchy business practices...I still hop they get handed their arse with the lawsuit.


Sad thing is they are the much bigger company but afraid of competition...That has to make you wonder!!! PPL intel is not our friends and without AMD over thelast 5-6 years I am sure we would have been 2 years back from where we are now at least. Innovations would have been pushed by needs of software alone, and we would rarely see anything without the celery name on it below 300 dollars....

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: anthrax
Well, from looking at the trends and early reports on the Conroe, AMD will loose its performance leadership for desktop processors.

From observation.
Conroe offers better performance per clock. It also has a deeper pipeline at 14 stages. AMD64 has 12 stage and still can't match the Conroe.

AMD can counter with the following.

1.)AMD can increase performance of AMD 64' by the following means:
a): Increase CPU clock speed. (shortest time)
b): Increase memory B/W (short term, it has been planned for ages)
c): Increase Cache (short term)
d): Use 65nm (medium term)
e): New archtecture (long term)


2.) However, implmenting the above isn't soo easy.

a.) Increasing Clock speed on the AMD 64 is going to be tricky on a 90nm. The fastest AMD64 is 2.8GHz and those don't seem to o/c past 3.0GHz very well. Its fairly safe to say that 3.0GHz is about the limit for 90nm.

However, even saying that 3.0GHz is the limit, most current AMD top out at 2.6GHz, so its safe to say that 2.6 GHz is about the fastest you will see a 90nm AMD 64 aimed at the mass market.

b.) I don't expect the new AM2 AMD64 to bring huge performance increases.
- DDR2 is unlikely to bring huge performance increases to the A64 platform. (THG did preview of the AM2)
- Just look at the switch from single channel DDR to dual channel DDR on A64. The benifits were very small.
- DDR2 also has increased latency that will detract from the gains from increased memory B/W.

c.) AMD can increase performance by increasing Cache from 1MB per core to 2MB per core. However, this is a very very expensive option for AMD. A dual core AMD64 w/ 2MB per core will have a die size of 300mm2 if made on a 90nm process. Thats 50% more die space over the current one. Here is the comparison

AMD single core 512kb (84mm2)
AMD dual core 1048kb (199mm2) 136% increase over single core.
AMD dual core 2048kb (> 300 mm3) 50% increase over dual core.

This clearly shows in AMD 64 x2 are significantly more costly to manufacture than single core AMD64 for the above reasons and a priced accordingly.

AMD is also haveing some capacitiy issues. If it aggresively pushes Dual-Core CPUs, they will be only shooting themsevles in the foot. Dual core takes 2 the die space but doesn't sell for twice the price. Their competitor will definately exploit this and will heavily push Dual Cores at low prices.(They have more capacity and also use 65nm) So in other words, dont' expect huge drops in prices for dual core AMD 64's.

d.) Well, expect 65nm from AMD in 2007. This will allow them to increase performance with further with more clockspeed and more cache. However, its competitor is ahead.
Also, the competitor's CPU offers better performance per clock than the A64.


e.) AMD can push a new architecture. But thats going to take quite some time. At least late 2008

To sum it up. AMD won't have having a performance lead once its competitor pushes its new chip.

- AMD is actually the one that has more to loose in a huge push to Dual Core. Increase die size will decrease production and reduce revenue unless Dual core chips can be priced 136% that of single core chips. (Its competitor can easily push a new marketing push and educate users to expect "Dual Cores" on their new PC's. That will really cuase AMD some problems.)

- AMD might still retain some advantages in the server market. Xeons don't scale very well when compared to AMD64 expecially past 2 cores. (Hyper Transport vs FSB) However, AMD has very limited time to exploit this weakness. Server market chips typically have higher unit prices too. This can increase revenue. However, it must be noted that most volume servers are still 2 ways and upping the #CPU is normally costly in terms of software licences for products like Oracle, Windows Server etc. etc.

one of the biggest risks for AMD is they have no money. unlike intel they still aren't THAT profitable.

if they end up dropping their ASPs to lik e$70 a chip again (unlikely but their ASPS will probably drop once conroe is out, instead of increasing prices of X2s like they are now) they will be impacted financially.


their big strong hold is 4 socket and up servers once woodcrest is out, and tha tis why hector ruiz said he is going to possibly take production away from consumer grade stuff and move it to enterprise (to protect ASPs basically).

the thing is if AMD has to go through a 2 year span of selling chips at $70 asp again they would just not have enough money to ever upgrade their factories to match intels. they are having trouble as it is buying 65nm equipment and intel is already planning for 45nm. so i hope they pull something out of their ass because they need to stay profitable for this to even be a 2 horse race.

 

[Keysplayr]

Well, What is Intels overall worth and what is AMD's? I mean, how much bigger is Intel than AMD? AMD has been on a roll for the better part of the last three years, surely they made a buck or two, no?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: hans007

Originally posted by: anthrax
Well, from looking at the trends and early reports on the Conroe, AMD will loose its performance leadership for desktop processors.

From observation.
Conroe offers better performance per clock. It also has a deeper pipeline at 14 stages. AMD64 has 12 stage and still can't match the Conroe.

AMD can counter with the following.

1.)AMD can increase performance of AMD 64' by the following means:
a): Increase CPU clock speed. (shortest time)
b): Increase memory B/W (short term, it has been planned for ages)
c): Increase Cache (short term)
d): Use 65nm (medium term)
e): New archtecture (long term)


2.) However, implmenting the above isn't soo easy.

a.) Increasing Clock speed on the AMD 64 is going to be tricky on a 90nm. The fastest AMD64 is 2.8GHz and those don't seem to o/c past 3.0GHz very well. Its fairly safe to say that 3.0GHz is about the limit for 90nm.

However, even saying that 3.0GHz is the limit, most current AMD top out at 2.6GHz, so its safe to say that 2.6 GHz is about the fastest you will see a 90nm AMD 64 aimed at the mass market.

b.) I don't expect the new AM2 AMD64 to bring huge performance increases.
- DDR2 is unlikely to bring huge performance increases to the A64 platform. (THG did preview of the AM2)
- Just look at the switch from single channel DDR to dual channel DDR on A64. The benifits were very small.
- DDR2 also has increased latency that will detract from the gains from increased memory B/W.

c.) AMD can increase performance by increasing Cache from 1MB per core to 2MB per core. However, this is a very very expensive option for AMD. A dual core AMD64 w/ 2MB per core will have a die size of 300mm2 if made on a 90nm process. Thats 50% more die space over the current one. Here is the comparison

AMD single core 512kb (84mm2)
AMD dual core 1048kb (199mm2) 136% increase over single core.
AMD dual core 2048kb (> 300 mm3) 50% increase over dual core.

This clearly shows in AMD 64 x2 are significantly more costly to manufacture than single core AMD64 for the above reasons and a priced accordingly.

AMD is also haveing some capacitiy issues. If it aggresively pushes Dual-Core CPUs, they will be only shooting themsevles in the foot. Dual core takes 2 the die space but doesn't sell for twice the price. Their competitor will definately exploit this and will heavily push Dual Cores at low prices.(They have more capacity and also use 65nm) So in other words, dont' expect huge drops in prices for dual core AMD 64's.

d.) Well, expect 65nm from AMD in 2007. This will allow them to increase performance with further with more clockspeed and more cache. However, its competitor is ahead.
Also, the competitor's CPU offers better performance per clock than the A64.


e.) AMD can push a new architecture. But thats going to take quite some time. At least late 2008

To sum it up. AMD won't have having a performance lead once its competitor pushes its new chip.

- AMD is actually the one that has more to loose in a huge push to Dual Core. Increase die size will decrease production and reduce revenue unless Dual core chips can be priced 136% that of single core chips. (Its competitor can easily push a new marketing push and educate users to expect "Dual Cores" on their new PC's. That will really cuase AMD some problems.)

- AMD might still retain some advantages in the server market. Xeons don't scale very well when compared to AMD64 expecially past 2 cores. (Hyper Transport vs FSB) However, AMD has very limited time to exploit this weakness. Server market chips typically have higher unit prices too. This can increase revenue. However, it must be noted that most volume servers are still 2 ways and upping the #CPU is normally costly in terms of software licences for products like Oracle, Windows Server etc. etc.

one of the biggest risks for AMD is they have no money. unlike intel they still aren't THAT profitable.

if they end up dropping their ASPs to lik e$70 a chip again (unlikely but their ASPS will probably drop once conroe is out, instead of increasing prices of X2s like they are now) they will be impacted financially.


their big strong hold is 4 socket and up servers once woodcrest is out, and tha tis why hector ruiz said he is going to possibly take production away from consumer grade stuff and move it to enterprise (to protect ASPs basically).

the thing is if AMD has to go through a 2 year span of selling chips at $70 asp again they would just not have enough money to ever upgrade their factories to match intels. they are having trouble as it is buying 65nm equipment and intel is already planning for 45nm. so i hope they pull something out of their ass because they need to stay profitable for this to even be a 2 horse race.

Answer to Anthrax:

1. If you look back on history, both marketshare and revenue share don't change much for at least the first year when a speed crown goes to the other guy. It takes at least a year for the momentum to shift (and even then it's very slow), and that means that the short term will include K8L and possibly the K10. The only exception to this was when the original Athlon was introduced...but the reason there wasn't performance. The reason for the quick shift at the time was
a.) Intel made the worst platform mistake(s) in their history in addition to underestimating Athlon's performance
b.) AMD dumped all of their K6 inventory in Asia at cost

2. Rev F CPUs (AM2) will have something else in addition to DDR2...they will run at lower power. If you look at AMD's roadmap again, this will become evident in hints like the 35w X2 3800+... Remember that roadmaps can change quickly if they maintain the same architecture for OEMs. In other words, changing the TDP and adding a couple of speed grades at the last minute isn't unheard of (though it is unusual). The lower power profile means that higher clocks should be much simpler than on current chips.

3. Hector Ruiz stated in recent JP Morgan conference that volume production of 65 nm begins sometime near August this year. He also stated in the January CC that "Our 65-nanometer data, which is already coming out, looks very encouraging. As a matter of fact, we have already microprocessor products built on 65 nanometer that are really looking as planned. Excellent at this point in time, and are confident that our ramp beginning the second half of the year will go well...what motivates the change from one node to the other, frankly, is that we able to meet our customer needs and demands are better as, and how rapidly we can make that transition". This means that AMD could bring 65nm early if it sees it as necessary.

4. While I agree with you that Intel will probably take the speed crown on the desktop (though I doubt it will be 20% by the time it's released and available), remember that this is only one small piece of the pie...
a.) Servers - The Opteron will almost certainly maintain it's lead here, especially on the Enterprise servers. The main reason for this is obviously HT, but in addition the planned Intel quad core is an MCM (like Smithfield or Pressler) and it also requires all data to go through the FSB.
b.) Value market - Though I'm sure plans could change at Intel, we have yet to see anything in their roadmap that competes with Sempron...certainly not Celeron. This is the bulk of CPUs shipped.
c.) Mobile - This is an interesting sector because we still know so little about it. I was quite surprised that Intel didn't show a working Merom chip at IDF! Mobile was Intel's fastest growing sector (though recent reports show that it has reduced drastically). I think we will have to withold thoughts on this sector until the Turion X2 is released and we can get benches on Merom...the reason is that we really have no data on either the Merom or TX2 as far as power and performance goes (applying Conroe's few benches performed on an Intel machine just doesn't cut it, and TX2 will be using the Rev F lower power cores...).

5. AMD's new architecture is due in late 2007/early 2008 according to Phil Hester (AMD's CTO) in this interview. Also, AMD will be 100% 65nm by mid 2007...


To Hans:

AMD is quite profitable and has almost $2 billion in cash...of course it's nowhere near what Intel has (almost $13 billion), but because of the inroads they've made over the last 2 years they're no longer vulnerable to a cash squeeze like they used to be.
I don't think Intel can afford a "Price War" for a number of reasons...
1. They must be very careful of their pricing and marketing because of the lawsuit. Wells Fargo estimates that the final judgement on that will be worth in the neighborhood of $4 billion, and that AMD has ~75% chance of winning (this was pre-Skype). The whole "Skype Fiasco" hasn't helped their case one bit, and I imagine that Intel legal is presently crawling into every orifice that Marketing has right now...
2. Once you discount the price of your chips, it's near impossible to bring them back up again. The reason that the Pentium D was priced so low is that Intel knew it was a short-term chip because of Conroe.
3. While discounting chip prices can get you some short-term marketshare boosts in that sector, you have to be careful that you're competitive in ALL sectors first. At the moment (as you point out) there are sectors where Intel just isn't competitive (Enterprise and value), and still won't be even with NGMA. It's similar to what Intel did to AMD many years ago with the Celeron... The P2 just wasn't competitive to the K6 at the time, so Intel introduced the Celeron at very cheap prices. Since they already owned the high end (Xeon), Intel used the profits from Xeon to subsidize the loss on the P2 revenue and let Celeron overwhelm the market. If AMD has their back to the wall, they can flood the market with sub-$100 dual-channel AM2 Semprons to gain marketshare, and maintain profits with their Opterons (currently their highest revenue anyway)...Intel knows this because they invented it!

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, What is Intels overall worth and what is AMD's? I mean, how much bigger is Intel than AMD? AMD has been on a roll for the better part of the last three years, surely they made a buck or two, no?

Yes they have...keep in mind though that the vast majority of the income went to retiring debt early from the original Fab 30 "gamble". AMD currently has an excellent looking balance sheet. They've also invested heavily into new infrastructure that will allow them to go head to head with Intel...this includes:

1. Completely revamping their shipping and inventory systems
2. Building a second super-Fab
3. Massive investment into "Customer Response" infrastructure (Intel can get a new part into any major city within hours or minutes, and AMD is finally close to that as well).

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
Conroe isn't the end of AMD

No, but Intel will own the performance crown for some time to come! MUHAHAHHHAHHHAA

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, What is Intels overall worth and what is AMD's? I mean, how much bigger is Intel than AMD? AMD has been on a roll for the better part of the last three years, surely they made a buck or two, no?

Yes they have...keep in mind though that the vast majority of the income went to retiring debt early from the original Fab 30 "gamble". AMD currently has an excellent looking balance sheet. They've also invested heavily into new infrastructure that will allow them to go head to head with Intel...this includes:

1. Completely revamping their shipping and inventory systems
2. Building a second super-Fab
3. Massive investment into "Customer Response" infrastructure (Intel can get a new part into any major city within hours or minutes, and AMD is finally close to that as well).

Hope you sold your stocks. Down already $4 since Conroe announced... what do you think's gunna happen when it actually comes and starts dispacing AMD sales?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, What is Intels overall worth and what is AMD's? I mean, how much bigger is Intel than AMD? AMD has been on a roll for the better part of the last three years, surely they made a buck or two, no?

Yes they have...keep in mind though that the vast majority of the income went to retiring debt early from the original Fab 30 "gamble". AMD currently has an excellent looking balance sheet. They've also invested heavily into new infrastructure that will allow them to go head to head with Intel...this includes:

1. Completely revamping their shipping and inventory systems
2. Building a second super-Fab
3. Massive investment into "Customer Response" infrastructure (Intel can get a new part into any major city within hours or minutes, and AMD is finally close to that as well).

Hope you sold your stocks. Down already $4 since Conroe announced... what do you think's gunna happen when it actually comes and starts dispacing AMD sales?

Sold at $41 and change, bought back in over the last few days (ASP $34.75)...
As I stated above, Conroe really won't have a huge effect on sales (despite the hype). At worst, Intel will be able to stop the marketshare loss for awhile.
The reason for the drop wasn't Conroe, it was because a well respected analyst (Eric Ross) released a downgrade from buy to sell because he thinks that Intel is about to initiate a price war (he isn't too keen on Intel shares either).
I expect that AMD will be back in the $40 range around the time of the next earnings release...at 30k shares, I hope to make a quick $180k profit in a month!
We'll see...

Edit: BTW, for those of you who were lamenting the fact that you didn't invest in AMD before, this might be a very good time...buy low, sell high.

 

[Zebo]

Only 180K a month and what do you do for a living?

I read your post above but I also remember AMD stock being in the crapper when they had no answer for northwood.. almost a penny stock hovering in the sub $5 range. Not saying it's correlation to whos got the best CPU's but it certainly seems that way.

Edit: BTW, for those of you who were lamenting the fact that you didn't invest in AMD before, this might be a very good time...buy low, sell high.

LMAO- of course you're gonna say that holding 30,000 shares.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Only 180K a month and what do you do for a living?

I read your post above but I also remember AMD stock being in the crapper when they had no answer for northwood.. almost a penny stock hovering the the sub $5 range. Not saying it's correlation to whos got the best CPU's but it certainly seems that way.

Actually, the sub-$5 range was after 9/11...but vis a vis Northwood, remember that AMD didn't have a server or value solution then either. They also didn't have any mobile sales...I know everyone likes to talk about Centrino as if there wasn't a Turion in sight, but AMD has gone from 2% marketshare in laptops to almost 20% in just 1 year.
The key point is that todays AMD has no resemblence to the AMD that Jerry Sanders left behind...
It's different when you inves than when you're planning your next system, you have to leave the emotions behind. I really got hammered during the economic downturn because I was both stupid and lazy, that ain't gonna happen again!
My portfolios have averaged 650%/year since 2003...

LMAO- of course you're gonna say that holding 30,000 shares

Due respect, but I really don't think that all of the AT Forum readers combined could move the market very much...
I'm just sayin...

 

[Zebo]

Viditor - your certainly make compelling points -

I thought I was rich when this Vision option fund was making me 100%..pfftt...You're a god! Should be the # 1 hedge fund manager in the country! Care to give us some basic pointers? Or where to look? BEsides buy low sell high. Just listen to guys like Eric Ross and call it a day?

PS to your edit...I was joking about that.. i know how many shares are outstanding

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I thought I was rich when this Vision option fund was making me 100%..pfftt...You're a god! Should be the # 1 hedge fund manager in the country! Care to give us some basic pointers? Or where to look?

PS to your edit...I was joking about that.. i know how many shares are outstanding

It's a Hell of a lot different when you invest someone else's money...I manage the portfolios for my family as well, and it's the scariest thing there is! I sure wouldn't want to be a Fund manager...!
Some ideas for you...
1. Obviously, AMD as a trading stock (short-term). Remember that I sold it in the low 40's, but IMHO this price is an abherition and is due to correct to the upside rather quickly.
2. I like Universal Display Corp (PANL)...I bought a large chunk a few years ago (ASP $5.75) and I can see it going as high as $100-$200 depending on whether they are able to develop a 50k-hour dark blue OLED element.
3. I bought into an oil shipping company (Frontline - FRO) which has been giving me around a 36% dividend average and has increased substantially in value (can't remember the ASP) since I bought it in early 03...

Possible others include Maxell (HIMX.F), which is developing the holographic storage with In-Phase...Article

I guess if I were to give advice, it would be that you go in order:
1. Get an idea on a tech or sector that you think will be rising fast
2. See what competition there is and how they compare with the company you're looking at.
3. Research the management of the company...for example, Hector Ruiz has been as superb for AMD as Andy Grove was for Intel (though I have been very uninspired with Intel's follow-up management). Notice the decisions they make and see if they make sense to you.
4. Pick an entrance price and an EXIT price...this last is the most difficult and the most important!

Hope that helps...

 

[Keysplayr]

Sold at $41 and change, bought back in over the last few days (ASP $34.75)...

Current value is 33.95.
Does this mean that since your buyback at 34.75, you have lost @ $24,000?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Sold at $41 and change, bought back in over the last few days (ASP $34.75)...

Current value is 33.95.
Does this mean that since your buyback at 34.75, you have lost @ $24,000?

On paper, yes...feeling good about it too!
I am very happy that I held off on buying heavily into Intel at $20 though...I don't when it will turn so I have kept my buys there to only 2k shares.

 

[RichUK]

I would be interested in buying some Intel shares since i believe Conroe will have a somewhat impact when it arrives.

But, and this is a BIG but. I don?t have a clue about buying shares etc. Has anyone got a reference point i can look at? Although m not to clued up on the process of buying and selling shares, I do learn fast.

I've been interested for a little while in purchasing some shares and hopefully watching them grow, and I believe this is a good time to purchase even though i don?t know how.

Any help peeps.

EDIT: Actually im just checking out some websites now. I think i'll toy around with it making an account etc and when i know completely what i am doing, i?ll take it more seriously. I take it you guys use online websites for your trading? Sorry for being a noob everyone?s got to start somewhere i guess.

EDIT 2: hmm just checking out this site HERE I think im beginning to understand the process now, LOL.

Just need to get better understanding of the computer Industry/Market now.

Also do I have a somewhat advantage with the current UK/US exchange rate, i.e. do I benefit in investing in shares more so in the US?

 

[Zebo]

Thanks so much Charles. YGPM.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Thanks so much Charles. YGPM.

Cheers Zebo!
Thought I'd post this cause Rich is asking too...

One of the sites I 've been using since 1999 is The Motley Fool.
I don't agree with all of their ideas, but they certainly help with the research ideas. The message boards are the really valuable tool though...keep in mind that it's a pay site (though I think there is a free trial period), and this keeps the "riff-raff" that you get on public boards out. Some of the people who post there are the smartest I've ever encountered! If you try it, look for posts from both eachus and alan81 on the AMD and INTC boards especially!

BTW...to all the rest, sorry for the OT...

Rich - if you think the US Dollar will go up, you benefit...if it goes down, you don't. It's percentages and not $/GBP actuals that count. In other words it's the change in value and not what the amounts are that is important.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Zebo
Only 180K a month and what do you do for a living?

I read your post above but I also remember AMD stock being in the crapper when they had no answer for northwood.. almost a penny stock hovering the the sub $5 range. Not saying it's correlation to whos got the best CPU's but it certainly seems that way.

Actually, the sub-$5 range was after 9/11...but vis a vis Northwood, remember that AMD didn't have a server or value solution then either. They also didn't have any mobile sales...I know everyone likes to talk about Centrino as if there wasn't a Turion in sight, but AMD has gone from 2% marketshare in laptops to almost 20% in just 1 year.
The key point is that todays AMD has no resemblence to the AMD that Jerry Sanders left behind...
It's different when you inves than when you're planning your next system, you have to leave the emotions behind. I really got hammered during the economic downturn because I was both stupid and lazy, that ain't gonna happen again!
My portfolios have averaged 650%/year since 2003...

LMAO- of course you're gonna say that holding 30,000 shares

Due respect, but I really don't think that all of the AT Forum readers combined could move the market very much...
I'm just sayin...

i learned the dont invest with your emotions lesson in college. luckily at the time i only sunk 1 entire summers earnings into well 3dfx and lost like $7000. not TOO bad a loss considering that lesson is now well in my head.


i have made money on amd, but their stock is just too high now. hell it is stiill probably too high at $34 and change. so i'm buying into intel which is under $20 now. im fairly certain intel will be testing the $28 range again inside of a year. it was at $28 at the end of december. i suppose all the AMD fanboy rallying, and recent talk about AMD has really killed intel, but generally the "talk" doesnt happen to a stock until it has made its rally. then the big guns sell, and everyone who bought on the "its at the top but will go higher hype" will be stuck with the shares.

thats why EVERYONE was sayin goog was going to $600 when it fell from 475. and that is why everyone was saying amd is going to $60 when it was $43. and now everyone is bashing on intel when the real funds are probably buying it en masse. honestly when it comes to cpu and graphic stocks, sell when cramer says to buy, buy when he says to sell.

 

[Viditor]

i have made money on amd, but their stock is just too high now. hell it is stiill probably too high at $34 and change

That is certainly an understandable reaction on first blush, especially considering past pricing. However, consider that AMD's estimated income per share has increased from $.62 to $2.00 in the last year alone...and that's just the average estimate.
Your idea about Intel is a sound one IMHO, but you might want to wait until after this quarter's earnings...it's expected to be pretty ugly (they did warn mid-quarter). I can see Intel getting down even further (maybe $15 or so).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Is now a good time to buy Sirius Satellite Radio? I'm thinking they are going to do well over the long-term.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Zebo

Thanks so much Charles. YGPM.

Cheers Zebo!
Thought I'd post this cause Rich is asking too...

One of the sites I 've been using since 1999 is The Motley Fool.
I don't agree with all of their ideas, but they certainly help with the research ideas. The message boards are the really valuable tool though...keep in mind that it's a pay site (though I think there is a free trial period), and this keeps the "riff-raff" that you get on public boards out. Some of the people who post there are the smartest I've ever encountered! If you try it, look for posts from both eachus and alan81 on the AMD and INTC boards especially!

BTW...to all the rest, sorry for the OT...

Rich - if you think the US Dollar will go up, you benefit...if it goes down, you don't. It's percentages and not $/GBP actuals that count. In other words it's the change in value and not what the amounts are that is important.

Thanks for the link and advise Viditor, im off to educate myself now.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: RichUK


Thanks for the link and advise Viditor, im off to educate myself now.

No worries Rich...see ya there! (same handle)

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Duvie
[
Sad thing is they are the much bigger company but afraid of competition...That has to make you wonder!!! PPL intel is not our friends and without AMD over thelast 5-6 years I am sure we would have been 2 years back from where we are now at least. Innovations would have been pushed by needs of software alone, and we would rarely see anything without the celery name on it below 300 dollars....

Too right there mate... I still remember spending $800 for a 386-33.... in 1991 dollars....