iversonyin
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2004
- 3,303
- 0
- 76
AMD doesn't have plants that crank out productions that Intel can. Aside from production capacity, Intel doesn't have much lead over AMD.
AMD is taking market shares on server chips and small gain on desktop (desktop market is a lagging one).
Intel CEO is trying to reform Intel's business. If he success, it'll bring great future for intel. But this transformation also distract Intel from it's core business of chip making.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966001.htm
Check out that article for more.
AMD is taking market shares on server chips and small gain on desktop (desktop market is a lagging one).
Intel CEO is trying to reform Intel's business. If he success, it'll bring great future for intel. But this transformation also distract Intel from it's core business of chip making.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966001.htm
Check out that article for more.
Did the guy mention AMD's PE ratio? How do you think that factors into all this? As of a few weeks ago it was around 500...
-fool
-fool
But i also herd a while ago that AMD opened up a new multibillion dollar plant in Germany. Before, they could not keep up with demand but i believe they now have the capacity to crank out as much CPU as is demanded.
Pocketbook feeling a bit lighter today?
Intel Last price $23, down $2.52
May be a good buy when it bottoms out
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Yeh, and AMD dropped almost $5.00 per share over the course of a few days between last Thursday and this Tuesday.
If I'm investing for a long term, I'm going INTC. Look at AMD's P/E. It's over 300...over 3x that of Googles.
Their stock is overvalued IMHO.
You'd be wrong. As most of you zealots are. I've owned Intel since late 93/early 1994. Don't know the exact date -- I'd have to call my FA.
Compare both since that time period:
http://www.google.com/search?oi=stock&q...Doff%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-35,GGLD:en
I'm sorry, but you guys are stupid for thinking that you should hold onto a stock for a couple of years. Stock should be held long term unless a serious problem arises (Fannie-Mae, Worldcom and a few others). I think you will see that the return on INTC was astronomically higher than AMD's return.
Secondly, when you hold long term it isn't always just about current share price. The yield/dividend from Intel is nice -- that's a nice source of cash flow. Especially since you can reinvest those dividends and end up with even more stock.
If you are talking about buying 5 shares and daytrading it away -- or just holding on for a year or so then you've no reason to invest like me. However, act as if the majority of investors are like you (they aren't) is a foolish thing. Most shareholders of INTC are Funds and large investment groups. Institutional type stuff and retirement funds like RSA, etc.
Why don't you look at their 10 year return?
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scoreboard2004-100biggest.html
Hell, look at the 10 year return of most of those stocks. See any that pop out? GE? MSFT? INTC? XOM? Those are stocks I've owned since 93-94 time frame. I've no plans of selling them. Why should I? It is about the long term and not the short term unless you want to play with options.
You can't argue with that market cap either. Intel has a lot more investment in its future than AMD does. In a market that is heavy on R&D and quick advancement of technology, you cannot deny that having more funds than your competitor is better.
If anyone bothered to look, INTC *barely* missed its guidance. It was heavily punished, however. Same thing happened to Dell last quarter. Barely missed guidance and the stock was crushed. Tech stocks tend to be more volatile for whatever reason. If they miss earnings they get severely punished.
I expect, however, for both Dell and INTC to do very nicely over the next 2-3 years.
Originally posted by: Mill
You'd be wrong. As most of you zealots are. I've owned Intel since late 93/early 1994. Don't know the exact date -- I'd have to call my FA.
Compare both since that time period:
http://www.google.com/search?oi=stock&q...Doff%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-35,GGLD:en
I'm sorry, but you guys are stupid for thinking that you should hold onto a stock for a couple of years. Stock should be held long term unless a serious problem arises (Fannie-Mae, Worldcom and a few others). I think you will see that the return on INTC was astronomically higher than AMD's return.
Secondly, when you hold long term it isn't always just about current share price. The yield/dividend from Intel is nice -- that's a nice source of cash flow. Especially since you can reinvest those dividends and end up with even more stock.
If you are talking about buying 5 shares and daytrading it away -- or just holding on for a year or so then you've no reason to invest like me. However, act as if the majority of investors are like you (they aren't) is a foolish thing. Most shareholders of INTC are Funds and large investment groups. Institutional type stuff and retirement funds like RSA, etc.
Why don't you look at their 10 year return?
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scoreboard2004-100biggest.html
Hell, look at the 10 year return of most of those stocks. See any that pop out? GE? MSFT? INTC? XOM? Those are stocks I've owned since 93-94 time frame. I've no plans of selling them. Why should I? It is about the long term and not the short term unless you want to play with options.
Hey!!! Don't bring logic and good financial advice to this thread. This is all about fanboys and AMD RULEZ!!!!!.
One other thing -- I'd prefer for many of the stocks I have to provide more cashflow rather than share value currently. Having the cashflow is better than having the value. Having a higher value prevents me from re-investing as much.
I was unable to do so until just now. Long story, but that's a big portion of my plan from here on out. I've got bonds for some cash flow.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,927
- 4,519
- 126
Its a Bloomberg topic, so I will focus on the stock market aspect solely.
Intel is a company that consistantly brings in high profit. It's a sound company to own. Intel stocks are right near a 2 year low, and thus the stocks are a great bargin.
AMD is a company that inconsistantly brings in profit, and when it does the profit is minimal. Its stocks are near a 5 year high, and thus the stocks are not likely to go up much higher. In fact, a little bad news and AMD stocks could plummet. AMD tends to hover around $18 a share, meaning you could easilly lose nearly 50% of your money if you buy AMD again and it goes back to historical normal prices for AMD.
Merrill Lynch feels AMD is a sell and will lose market share in 2006. What happened? AMD stock plummeted yesterday. AMD stock was down 16% in two days. It is back up a bit today.
Thus I think the smart people will sell AMD now and maybe buy Intel. Then when AMD plummets, buy AMD back. Sell high, buy low - its one of four ways to make money in the stock market.
Buy battered companies that are still solid. Sell companies near their peak. What is wrong with that Bloomberg advice? Intel had a tough 2004 and 2005. It really does look like 2006 will be the start of the turn around for Intel. Maybe it won't happen until later. But Intel will still bring in $10 billion revenues a quarter (and $2+ billion profits). That is a battered but solid company.
Intel is a company that consistantly brings in high profit. It's a sound company to own. Intel stocks are right near a 2 year low, and thus the stocks are a great bargin.
AMD is a company that inconsistantly brings in profit, and when it does the profit is minimal. Its stocks are near a 5 year high, and thus the stocks are not likely to go up much higher. In fact, a little bad news and AMD stocks could plummet. AMD tends to hover around $18 a share, meaning you could easilly lose nearly 50% of your money if you buy AMD again and it goes back to historical normal prices for AMD.
Merrill Lynch feels AMD is a sell and will lose market share in 2006. What happened? AMD stock plummeted yesterday. AMD stock was down 16% in two days. It is back up a bit today.
Thus I think the smart people will sell AMD now and maybe buy Intel. Then when AMD plummets, buy AMD back. Sell high, buy low - its one of four ways to make money in the stock market.
Buy battered companies that are still solid. Sell companies near their peak. What is wrong with that Bloomberg advice? Intel had a tough 2004 and 2005. It really does look like 2006 will be the start of the turn around for Intel. Maybe it won't happen until later. But Intel will still bring in $10 billion revenues a quarter (and $2+ billion profits). That is a battered but solid company.
Depends.
Smaller area for heat to escape from/greater density of heat producing components = more heat
Each component needs less power thus produces less heat however
But also there can be issues with leakage which increases power consumption, and therefor heat.
Obviously there are loads of other things too, but those are some that came to mind for for inc and reducing heat.
It all depends on how good the move to a smaller process it, as Prescott showed.
ponyo
Lifer
- Feb 14, 2002
- 19,688
- 2,811
- 126
First off, lot of misinformation in this thread. Yes AMD PE is high. But high PE doesn't mean it's bad necessary. PE is backwards looking indicator. I would place much more weight on forward PE as the stock market is forward looking usually 6-12 months. If you look at forward PE, AMD isn't so out of line with lot of hot techs although it's about double of Intel.
Intel paying small dividend tells you its days as growth tech stock is over. Intel and Dell growth days are over. I would still consider Intel bluechip. Dell is not and unattractive no matter how you look at it. It pains me to say it because I rode part of Dell's growth train back in 97-98.
As for the AMD downgrades past couple of days, it's complete crap but you get that from big brokerages. These analysts are just doing what they're paid to do which is pump whichever stock their brokerage firm has big interest in. Both Deutsch Bank and Merrill has big position in Intel. Both firms hold millions of shares of Intel worth billions. Merrill Lynch Analcyst Joe Osha is longtime Intel bull.
Investing in tech is all about momentum and AMD has it right now. I don't see that changing in the next 12 months. Of course I'm biased as I own AMD shares.
Another sector that has lot of press right now and Wall St undoubtly will pump is video stuff. I mean stuff like iPod video. Video is the new buzzword on Wall St. If you have high risk tolerence and like to gamble, there's tiny company you can gamble on. It's still under the radar of Wall Street but one I think will catch on fire this year. It's like Qualcomm and Rambus play couple years back. The company is called Burst, Inc (BRST). They hold many patents on video streaming and distribution on the internet. They won case against Microsoft last year and now are getting sued by Apple. Apple will be countersued by Burst and Apple will lose. If you have little play money you can afford to lose I would look into this company. Again I'm biased as I own small amount in Burst.
INTC is still a growth stock. They are completely revitalizing how the company does business with new leadership. Instead of just looking at the short term technological aspect of AMD and INTC you should look at the company's entire profile.
Just because two stocks are competitors doesn't mean one stock has to do well and another do bad.
I would also argue against saying Dell is not a growth stock. Their expansion into peripherals and consumer electronics gives them a very large market to expand into.
Yes, there's no reason to ignore new companies and stocks that might be big winners based on emerging technology. However, ignoring entrenched companies with massive assets, high investor amounts, and a much more established business products is foolish. Intel and Dell's days are not over. There's a reason that GE and others continue to be massively held stocks. They've reinvented themselves over and over again and continue to expand into new markets and sectors outside their original business model.
Until AMD is a consistent earnings winner it will continue to be volatile and not be held in high regard by institutional buyers.
I own several AMD products -- I'm not badge whore. However, you cannot ignore the massive lead that INTC has over AMD as far as entrenchment in the world market, assets, R&D spending, and relationships with bigger companies. AMD has a long way to go before becoming that powerful.
Dell and Intel still have very nice growth rates -- especially for companies their size in a very competive market. To write them off and say they've tapped out their potential growth is a mistake.
I'm bullish on both -- not because I'm a shareholder, but because it is common sense. I wouldn't hold onto a stock that had its growth potential shot. I'm about to unload Wal-Mart if the next few quarters don't start improving.
Just because two stocks are competitors doesn't mean one stock has to do well and another do bad.
I would also argue against saying Dell is not a growth stock. Their expansion into peripherals and consumer electronics gives them a very large market to expand into.
Yes, there's no reason to ignore new companies and stocks that might be big winners based on emerging technology. However, ignoring entrenched companies with massive assets, high investor amounts, and a much more established business products is foolish. Intel and Dell's days are not over. There's a reason that GE and others continue to be massively held stocks. They've reinvented themselves over and over again and continue to expand into new markets and sectors outside their original business model.
Until AMD is a consistent earnings winner it will continue to be volatile and not be held in high regard by institutional buyers.
I own several AMD products -- I'm not badge whore. However, you cannot ignore the massive lead that INTC has over AMD as far as entrenchment in the world market, assets, R&D spending, and relationships with bigger companies. AMD has a long way to go before becoming that powerful.
Dell and Intel still have very nice growth rates -- especially for companies their size in a very competive market. To write them off and say they've tapped out their potential growth is a mistake.
I'm bullish on both -- not because I'm a shareholder, but because it is common sense. I wouldn't hold onto a stock that had its growth potential shot. I'm about to unload Wal-Mart if the next few quarters don't start improving.
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
- May 14, 2003
- 9,943
- 107
- 106
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,393
- 8,552
- 126
AMD can't provide an entire platform like intel can.
intel makes chipsets. AMD does not.
intel makes mobos. AMD does not.
intel has experience at creating new industrial designs for computers. AMD does not.
though, iirc, apple has experience at designing mobos and chipsets, when moving to a completely new architecture that your guys are inexperienced with it is probably a good idea to bring in a partner who is very experienced at it.
not to mention that yonah and other pentium-m derivatives are quite competitive with AMD at performance per watt.
Yes, but their revenue is such a tiny fraction of INTC. Don't get caught up in percentage. A larger company growing 10% still grows more in totality than a small company growing 45%. And we all know 45% is not sustainable -- AMD itself has proven it can't continue such growth. That growth percentage was also based on having such crappy growth from the year before, so the increase "looks" great, but since their growth and revenue had been so spotty before...
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
- May 14, 2003
- 9,943
- 107
- 106
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter