AMD is doomed!

CoolTechZone.com - Is AMD Doomed?
"The thing I find most interesting in this battle of silicon supremacy
is just how unbelievably thick (or perhaps slow) AMD has been lately.
For the entire life cycle of the Pentium 4 family, AMD was far ahead.
The company made the best processors in terms of performance with cost
efficiency in mind. However, it had a nice 1-1.5 years of time span
where it could’ve evolved or innovated enough, but it didn’t. Granted
that AMD is still leading the desktop and server markets in terms of
performance, it’s not the point. The point is the lack of evolution and
innovation from AMD."
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departme..._200602272202/

Ed wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:47:26 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


CoolTechZone.com - Is AMD Doomed?
"The thing I find most interesting in this battle of silicon supremacy
is just how unbelievably thick (or perhaps slow) AMD has been lately.
For the entire life cycle of the Pentium 4 family, AMD was far ahead.
The company made the best processors in terms of performance with cost
efficiency in mind. However, it had a nice 1-1.5 years of time span
where it could’ve evolved or innovated enough, but it didn’t. Granted
that AMD is still leading the desktop and server markets in terms of
performance, it’s not the point. The point is the lack of evolution and
innovation from AMD."
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departme..._200602272202/



Sell your AMD while it's still in the 40s.
Ed

Google the author. He seems to make a hobby of flamebait articles.

His name is Varun Dubey. I wonder if he gets paid by the hit?

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:25:58 -0600, Del Cecchi wrote:


Ed wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:47:26 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


CoolTechZone.com - Is AMD Doomed?
"The thing I find most interesting in this battle of silicon supremacy
is just how unbelievably thick (or perhaps slow) AMD has been lately.
For the entire life cycle of the Pentium 4 family, AMD was far ahead.
The company made the best processors in terms of performance with cost
efficiency in mind. However, it had a nice 1-1.5 years of time span
where it couldÿve evolved or innovated enough, but it didnÿt. Granted
that AMD is still leading the desktop and server markets in terms of
performance, itÿs not the point. The point is the lack of evolution and
innovation from AMD."
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departme..._200602272202/



Sell your AMD while it's still in the 40s.


Why? We bought in the 3s - 10s. ...made at least 6x our money over eight
years, even with *conservative* investment. If AMD dips into the 20's
it's simply time to double-up! ;-)

Ed

Google the author. He seems to make a hobby of flamebait articles.

AMD seems to have caught the attention of the pump-n-dumpers.

His name is Varun Dubey. I wonder if he gets paid by the hit?

"hit"? Interesting visual, but "Dubey" doesn't sound Sicilian.

--
Keith

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:25:58 -0600, Del Cecchi wrote:


Ed wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:47:26 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


CoolTechZone.com - Is AMD Doomed?
"The thing I find most interesting in this battle of silicon
supremacy
is just how unbelievably thick (or perhaps slow) AMD has been lately.
For the entire life cycle of the Pentium 4 family, AMD was far ahead.
The company made the best processors in terms of performance with
cost
efficiency in mind. However, it had a nice 1-1.5 years of time span
where it couldÿve evolved or innovated enough, but it didnÿt. Granted
that AMD is still leading the desktop and server markets in terms of
performance, itÿs not the point. The point is the lack of evolution
and
innovation from AMD."
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departme..._200602272202/



Sell your AMD while it's still in the 40s.


Why? We bought in the 3s - 10s. ...made at least 6x our money over
eight
years, even with *conservative* investment. If AMD dips into the 20's
it's simply time to double-up! ;-)

Ed

Google the author. He seems to make a hobby of flamebait articles.

AMD seems to have caught the attention of the pump-n-dumpers.

His name is Varun Dubey. I wonder if he gets paid by the hit?

"hit"? Interesting visual, but "Dubey" doesn't sound Sicilian.

--
Keith

I'm the one with the name ending in a vowel, and I was talking about Page
Hits. And Dubey apparently lives in India, dreaming of fame and
fortune on the world wide web and the money he will make from his famous
web site with all the page views from this flamebait he puts out there.

That is the only reason I can conceive for the stuff he says.

PS I did better than AMD on Perficient PRFT.

del cecchi

Del Cecchi wrote:
I'm the one with the name ending in a vowel, and I was talking about Page
Hits. And Dubey apparently lives in India, dreaming of fame and
fortune on the world wide web and the money he will make from his famous
web site with all the page views from this flamebait he puts out there.

That is the only reason I can conceive for the stuff he says.

PS I did better than AMD on Perficient PRFT.

Actually it's the whole Cooltechzone.com website, there are other
authors there doing the exact same job, not just Dubey. Well, I had a
lot of trouble getting to their website yesterday, the page would
sometimes load, sometimes not. A lot of retries needed. If they're going
by page hits, then they better have a server capable of keeping up with
them.

But the ultimate hitman is still Ed Stroglio over at Overclockers.

Yousuf Khan

Ed wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:56:14 -0500, Keith wrote:

Why? We bought in the 3s - 10s. ...made at least 6x our money over eight
years, even with *conservative* investment. If AMD dips into the 20's
it's simply time to double-up! ;-)

Great, I bought and sold AMD 3 times since it was $3, last was 14-16 and
sold @40 for 85K profit. I'll buy back in on AMD's next upswing.

It got hammered down below $39 for some reason today. You could tell it
was coming because it was trading flat for the past week or so. Usually
it should be making steady progress upwards, but it hadn't done that
for too long.

Either it went down because people are starting to believe that Intel's
next gen chips are actually going to be faster than AMD's, or people
are just bailing because they were on margin for too long.

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote:
Ed wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:56:14 -0500, Keith wrote:


Why? We bought in the 3s - 10s. ...made at least 6x our money over eight
years, even with *conservative* investment. If AMD dips into the 20's
it's simply time to double-up! ;-)

Great, I bought and sold AMD 3 times since it was $3, last was 14-16 and
sold @40 for 85K profit. I'll buy back in on AMD's next upswing.


It got hammered down below $39 for some reason today. You could tell it
was coming because it was trading flat for the past week or so. Usually
it should be making steady progress upwards, but it hadn't done that
for too long.

Either it went down because people are starting to believe that Intel's
next gen chips are actually going to be faster than AMD's, or people
are just bailing because they were on margin for too long.

Yousuf Khan

Well, AMD pe ratio is 97, and Intel is 15. Given that they are in the
same business.... more or less....

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

In article ,
says...
YKhan wrote:
Ed wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:56:14 -0500, Keith wrote:


Why? We bought in the 3s - 10s. ...made at least 6x our money over eight
years, even with *conservative* investment. If AMD dips into the 20's
it's simply time to double-up! ;-)

Great, I bought and sold AMD 3 times since it was $3, last was 14-16 and
sold @40 for 85K profit. I'll buy back in on AMD's next upswing.


It got hammered down below $39 for some reason today. You could tell it
was coming because it was trading flat for the past week or so. Usually
it should be making steady progress upwards, but it hadn't done that
for too long.

Either it went down because people are starting to believe that Intel's
next gen chips are actually going to be faster than AMD's, or people
are just bailing because they were on margin for too long.

Yousuf Khan

Well, AMD pe ratio is 97, and Intel is 15. Given that they are in the
same business.... more or less....

I believe the 'E' part of AMD's numbers still includes Spansion's
losses. Though 15 is pretty low for Intel too, indicating that the
street doesn't believe there is any growth ahead for Intel.

--
Keith

Del Cecchi wrote:
Well, AMD pe ratio is 97, and Intel is 15. Given that they are in the
same business.... more or less....

Well, that's better than the PE they had last quarter when one website,
Yahoo, was listing AMD's PE as over 400 (in Google's territory)! That
was prior to Spansion being sold off. Also the Earnings are based on a
consensus estimate of analysts covering AMD. For the past several
quarters, all of the analysts have severely underestimated AMD's
earnings by a big margin. And they're expected to underestimate it
again. The real PE is probably closer to 40.

Last quarter, Intel's PE was around 30, the current PE of 15 is probably
a result of the funk it went into after missing its earnings last quarter.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Del Cecchi wrote:
Well, AMD pe ratio is 97, and Intel is 15. Given that they are in the
same business.... more or less....

Well, that's better than the PE they had last quarter when one website,
Yahoo, was listing AMD's PE as over 400 (in Google's territory)! That
was prior to Spansion being sold off. Also the Earnings are based on a
consensus estimate of analysts covering AMD. For the past several
quarters, all of the analysts have severely underestimated AMD's
earnings by a big margin. And they're expected to underestimate it
again. The real PE is probably closer to 40.

Last quarter, Intel's PE was around 30, the current PE of 15 is
probably a result of the funk it went into after missing its earnings
last quarter.

Sorry charlie. The PE of 106 for AMD is actual TTM (Trailing Twelve
Months) from Yahoo finance. Forward is supposed to be 21 something for
period ending Christmas 07d. Corresponding INTC numbers are both around
14.

del
Yousuf Khan