# Bloodbath for AMD at the Stock-Markets, Company Struggles to Survive



## btarunr (Jul 12, 2008)

Sure, the graphics division brings some cheer for the company but seriously, to what extent is it helping the company alongside a marginally increased market-share with processors? Not much. AMD struggles to survive as stocks plummet below the $6 mark at NASDAQ index, which was priced at $15 /share only a year ago; this is the lowest value for the AMD stock since 2002. 

AMD's survival is crucial for the entire computing industry as it keeps check on inflating prices by major players such as Intel and NVIDIA (who themselves are seeing bad days at the stock-markets these days). It has immense engineering potential to take on major players and force them to slash their prices. There are talks already doing rounds of CEO Hector Ruiz planning to quit.

Market forces and mal-informed consumerism are also to blame. A person chooses competitive brands over AMD products mainly because they're supplied and marketed better, sure Intel and NVIDIA do make better products in many categories but 'better' is a very relative value, how much better and for how much more (price) is something that keeps fluctuating, again fluctuations are mainly triggered by competition that AMD brings into the market. In other words, thank AMD for making NVIDIA sell GeForce 8800 GT for as low as $120 or better still, giving rise to a whole new SKU, the GeForce 9800 GTX+, with the '+' matching the red cross on first-aid kits.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 12, 2008)

If i was mega rich,i would bail amd out.

I hope they can get through this hard time,no one wants to see amd dissapear.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

Hey btarunr Yahoo isnt 100% correct on this. AMD hit well below 4 bucks back in 2002. 

Not saying they are any trouble but they have been worse off. Also as you well know the American market place isnt the most friendly right now. It never is before an election.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 12, 2008)

Yahoo isn't the only one reporting that, I'm not the only one reporting this, here's another report it: http://en.expreview.com/2008/07/12/amd-fighting-for-surivial-stock-lower-5/


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

Check this out man. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9860767

Just look at their 20 year history and check October 2002. Im not giving you a hard time this is just something I know about.

FYI I have money invested in AMD. Thats another reason I keep track of these things.


----------



## wolf2009 (Jul 12, 2008)

i hope amd doesn't go down. that would me the end of mainstream prices for components as we know it. current high end prices will become the new mainstream prices . that would be a sad day.


----------



## Paintface (Jul 12, 2008)

sounds like a good time to invest( and support) AMD now


----------



## KainXS (Jul 12, 2008)

amd has good graphics cards now but they haven't made a competitive cpu since the X2 6000+, so many people don't buy as many amd motherboards and buy intel instead:shadedshu

poor ati:shadedshu


----------



## a111087 (Jul 12, 2008)

fix "extent", unless its another British word I never herd about... )

and OMG...  and I thought the graphics division would bring AMD profits...


----------



## Gallatin (Jul 12, 2008)

i don't like this a bit. and i just bought a brand new X2 4600+


----------



## btarunr (Jul 12, 2008)

I'm the worst victim of this internal divide between BrE and AmE. :shadedshu


----------



## mrw1986 (Jul 12, 2008)

It's great, because I bought AMD a few days when they were $5.57, now they are well under $5.00. Awesome.


----------



## evil bill (Jul 12, 2008)

a111087 said:


> fix "extent", unless its another British word I never herd about... )



If you haven't _heard_ of the widely used word "extent", perhaps you shouldn't try to correct others use of the English language.


----------



## Megasty (Jul 12, 2008)

Oh well, time to waste some more hard-earned cash. The last thing we need is for AMD to die in the midst of NV f-ing up so badly. We might not see a card under $400 if they do.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

one way to fix this i for AMD to start making intel chipsets again yea sounds dumb but AMD ca do quadfire mobo's that run cool and support gen 2 PCI-e on 4 slots @8x intel still pushes out mobos with dual 8x and they are considered enthusiast grade boards. :shadedshu

one thing i don't understand is it used to be about a 90/10 split between intel and AMD computers at bestbuy were i work now we carry more AMD's than intels yet the stock continues to fall?  and i know that i personally have sold many more AMD's than intels they have a better priceerformance ratio

if people want to see tech move foreward it would be a good decision to start investing now. otherwise al of you can live withthe monopoly of intel and nv


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jul 12, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Check this out man.
> 
> http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9860767
> 
> ...



Be careful when looking at prices of stocks over a long history. Keep in mind that there are stock splits that might "halve the value" overnight.


----------



## Triprift (Jul 12, 2008)

Things may turn around ATI have had a good run in the gpu department recently and if AMD can produce some decent cpus with better clock speed and L2 cache they might be in bussiness.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 12, 2008)

The Phenom CPU's are useless. If enthusiasts don't like certain CPU they will influence the regular consumor. And the Phenom can not be overclocked to decent speeds. I do my best at recommending ATI hardware, but I don't recommend AMD hardware simply because their CPU's can't compete with Intel.

Not that Intel is coming with their E5 and E7 CPU's, AMD is going to loose eaven more...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Be careful when looking at prices of stocks over a long history. Keep in mind that there are stock splits that might "halve the value" overnight.



Of course. But that wasn't the case here. Trust me I remember the year VERY well. It wasnt my best. :shadedshu


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 12, 2008)

AMD stock has only decreased by roughly $3 in the last 6 months and you call this a blood bath? Compared to the same time frame, Nvidia's stock price drop by roughly $16 leaving a $13 stock price, drop gap between the 2 companies.  This kind of comparison puts things into prospective.  Also, why is there no article?  The only link in the OP is yahoo ticker.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> AMD stock has only decreased by roughly $3 in the last 6 months and you call this a blood bath? Compared to the same time frame, Nvidia's stock price drop by roughly $16 leaving a $13 stock price, drop gap between the 2 companies.  This kind of comparison puts things into prospective.  Also, why is there no article?  The only link in the OP is yahoo ticker.



Yeah that was kinda my point but btarunr is only reporting what some of the media is saying. Sometimes the news is pretty melodramatic. I dont think we have to worry about AMD. As a matter of fact I think in the next 6 months your going to see some pretty big gains.......at least I'm not selling my stocks until the effects of the 4800 series start to be felt. If I dont see any gain from that then Ill sell out. AND trust me I'm not the only one.

Also lets not forget this is right before the election. After that its anyones game. If you got balls then NOW is the time to buy.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 12, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah that was kinda my point but btarunr is only reporting what some of the media is saying. Sometimes the news is pretty melodramatic.* I dont think we have to worry about AMD*. As a matter of fact I think in the next 6 months your going to see some pretty big gains.......at least I'm not selling my stocks until the effects of the 4800 series start to be felt. If I dont see any gain from that then Ill sell out. AND trust me I'm not the only one.



No, we don't but IMHO we should leave the sensationalism with the reporters, not here.  Also, if they are other reports they should be linked to the OP.  Not left to us to google.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

Well like I said btarunr got this info from multiple places. Lets not kill the messenger. Bottom line is he got us all talking and got you researching the truth. And that is what you should do with any information. Was it over the top? Sure but most "news" is.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 12, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well like I said btarunr got this info from multiple places. Lets not kill the messenger. Bottom line is he got us all talking and got you researching the truth. And that is what you should do with any information. Was it over the top? Sure but most "news" is.


What you are saying doesn't make sense.  What message is being presented if there is no link?  You say there are multiple places however none are linked to the OP at this time.  Which is what I am talking about.  Sure after the fact we can google link articles.  But it should have been presented in the OP.  Also, after reading the information does it relate to the subject?  Per your own statement it was over the top.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

Read all the posts man. I was the first one to question this news. He posted another source than Yahoo. I also did too in response to that.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

so would now be a good time to invest in AMD stock?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

YES!!!!! invest now and try and try adn help bring it back up


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

hmm i could spare $75-100 i suppose.  could that become much larger in the future?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 12, 2008)

Would be sad to see them go but I think if they badly needed money they could liquidate millions in machinery, also this might be because they didn't market as well as intel who have cpu's in nearly every OEM these days.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

but if I invest in INTEL now and say AMD goes under INTEL will be HUGEEEEE and money money money for meee.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 12, 2008)

If there has to be a 'sell-out', AMD goes to either IBM or Samsung.


----------



## LonGun (Jul 12, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> hmm i could spare $75-100 i suppose.  could that become much larger in the future?



I doubt AMD is going to fall. They should know better than anyone else.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 12, 2008)

*this looks kinda bad aswell as good  AMD Stands Behind ATI, Write-Downs And All*



btarunr said:


> Sure, the graphics division brings some cheer for the company but seriously, to what extent is it helping the company alongside a marginally increased market-share with processors? Not much. AMD struggles to survive as stocks plummet below the $6 mark at NASDAQ index, which was priced at $15 /share only a year ago; this is the lowest value for the AMD stock since 2002.
> 
> AMD’s survival is crucial for the entire computing industry as it keeps check on inflating prices by major players such as Intel and NVIDIA (who themselves are seeing bad days at the stock-markets these days). It has immense engineering potential to take on major players and force them to slash their prices. There are talks already doing rounds of CEO Hector Ruiz planning to quit.
> 
> ...




Market Scan
AMD Stands Behind ATI, Write-Downs And All
Melinda Peer, 07.11.08, 7:20 PM ET

 Advanced Micro Devices 





Advanced Micro Devices on Friday revealed it will take an $880.0 million write-down on the handheld and digital television units it acquired from ATI Technologies, which isn't the first time the semiconductor company has had to lower the value of an ATI-related asset. But the company stood behind its acquisition emphasizing that it's a long-term investment.

The goodwill impairment charge, or lowered book value of an asset, arose after the Advanced Micro Devices (nyse: AMD - news - people ) conducted an analysis of the businesses and determined that they weren't performing to its expectations, making it the second ATI-related write-down that the chipmaker has had to stomach since buying the company in July 2006. BMO Capital Markets Analyst Brian Piccioni estimates that Advanced Micro had $3.2 billion of goodwill and $1.2 billion of intangibles on its books following its purchase of ATI and in 2007's fourth quarter, the company had a $1.3 billion goodwill impairment charge and $400.0 million in intangibles from ATI. 

AMD's stock closed Friday down by 12 cents, or 2.4%, at $4.84.

"Although goodwill and intangibles are just accounting plugs, with another $880.0 million of ATI-related write-downs, we believe AMD has effectively written off $3.0 billion (over 50.0%) of the $5.6 billion ATI purchase price in about 18 months," Piccioni said.

But Drew Prairie of Advanced Micro's media relations division, said the acquisition is an essential component of the company's long-term strategy to integrate Advanced Micro's microprocessors and ATI's graphics and chipsets. 

"We're the only company now in the industry that has intellectual property in both of those main technologies," Prairie said, pointing to the company's recently launched mobile system and said that eventually, the company plans on integrating the technologies into a single chip. 

In July 2006, Advanced Micro acquired ATI Technologies and its arsenal of graphics chips and chipsets for $5.4 billion as a way to better compete with Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ). Analysts had a mixed response to the deal but seemed to agree that while the synergies where there, integration may prove difficult and Advanced Micro would still struggle to gain market share from Intel (see " AMD Makes Its Move"). 

Advanced Micro said the latest $880.0 million in charges will be recorded in quarter ended on Jun. 28. Also in its second-quarter results, Advanced Micro will record a restructuring charge of $32.0 million related to employee severance and $36.0 million in charges related to short-term investments. Of those charges, $24.0 million were related to the company's investment in Spansion (nasdaq: SPSN - news - people ), a semiconductor device company that specializes in flash memory. The remainder of the investment charge was related to holdings the company had in auction-rate securities. 

Offsetting the charges, the company said it will report gains from the sale of wafer fabrication tools that will positively impact gross margin by $190.0 million. 

Advanced Micro said it the impairment charges won't necessitate any current or future cash expenditures. 

Broker Action: Motorola, Google

Big Banks Spark Rally

source yahoo finance/forbes thread link http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/11/ad...ity-cx_mp_0711markets40.html?partner=yahootix


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

even if i invest now,  say in the future AMD becomes close with INTEL, the price i could then sell the stock would be much more, correct?


----------



## jyoung75 (Jul 12, 2008)

cdawall said:


> one thing i don't understand is it used to be about a 90/10 split between intel and AMD computers at bestbuy were i work now we carry more AMD's than intels yet the stock continues to fall?



See that's the problem...if you don't have the techology to command a premium in the marketplace, and you can only hold onto your market share by pricing close to cost, you're going to lose a crap load of money.  And if you're doing that your stock is going to fall in the toilet.

People have always cheered AMD for offering price competitive processors.  Yet their manufacturing processes, technology, and scale is far behind Intel so they are cost disadvantaged.  If AMD is cost disadvantaged yet sells their processors cheaper, they are going to be out of business in a few years.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 12, 2008)

keeping in mind also - however the numerous anti-trust investigations into Intel's practices turn out could seriously boost AMD's marketshare, and image, and their wallet as well.  Intel is under scrutiny by nearly a dozen or more different organizations throughout the world, and we've already seen Intel get slapped with one fine from Korea . . . that's just the tip of the ice berg.  If the US FTC finds Intel was in violation of fair-trade laws, Intel could be hit with a crippling fine, and could also be forced to pay AMD a certain amount as well . . .


right now is a prime time to invest into AMD; if I had the money I definitely would.  Their share prices have been relatively stable for the last 6 months now;


----------



## LonGun (Jul 12, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> even if i invest now,  say in the future AMD becomes close with INTEL, the price i could then sell the stock would be much more, correct?



Maybe but I don't think that's gonna happen. If you're planning to invest now, AMD is not the company for you to go for.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

LonGun said:


> Maybe but I don't think that's gonna happen. If you're planning to invest now, AMD is not the company for you to go for.



wait, i thought it would be good to invest in AMD now since the stock cost so little now.  should i buy intel and hope AMD goes out, or hope intel just keeps succeeding?  how much is INTEL stock per share now? anyone know?


----------



## ThomasDM (Jul 12, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> hmm i could spare $75-100 i suppose.  could that become much larger in the future?



If AMD gets its act together you might get a decent return within a couple of years but before you invest money in a stock you really need to analyze the company. It's not a good idea to invest money in a company just because you like it or because the stock has dropped a lot. There's a reason why AMD dropped from $40 in 2006 to $4.84 today.

Besides, $100 isn't really enough to invest in the stock market. If your broker charges you $10 per trade your stock will need to rise more than 20% before you make any profit.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

ThomasDM said:


> Besides, $100 isn't really enough to invest in the stock market. If your broker charges you $10 per trade your stock will need to rise more than 20% before you make any profit.



so thats why brokers make soo much money.  wow i didnt know that.  im 16 and im not totally aware of how the stock market works, my dad does though.


----------



## jyoung75 (Jul 12, 2008)

LonGun said:


> I doubt AMD is going to fall. They should know better than anyone else.



Based on what? Q207 they had an operating loss of $457M, Q307 a loss of $226M, Q407 a loss of $1,753M, Q108 a loss of $264M....get the picture?  You can't lose $3 billion a year and stay in business.  Especially not in this environment where debt has become very expensive and the market is ridding itself of money losing and risky investments.

The only hope AMD has is to deliver a victory in their CPU division similar to what ATI has just done to Nvidia (e.g., a GPU architecture that is significantly cheaper to manufacture and offers vastly superior performance).  They have to come out with a processor that is CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE and offers SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE to Nehalem, and they have to do it within the year.  Otherwise the CEO will be forced to resign (he's promised yet not delivered on turning around the company, they continue to overhype and underdeliver on Bobcat, Bulldozer and other CPU designs) and the company will be sold at a 'firesale' to IBM or Samsung.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

what happens to stock holders and their stocks if AMD goes down and is bought out by a company such as IBM or Samsung?


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jul 12, 2008)

Investing in stocks is always a gamble, IMO buying AMD stock would be a relatively safe investment. In fact, I was already eying their stock and this makes me very happy at the moment. (to some _extent_).


----------



## jyoung75 (Jul 12, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> what happens to stock holders and their stocks if AMD goes down and is bought out by a company such as IBM or Samsung?




Depends when it happens.  If the company files for bankruptcy the stockholders will get wiped out and assets will be sold for pennies on the dollar.  If they come to an agreement with IBM or Samsung before they are forced into bankrupcty there could be a lift in the stock if IBM or Samsung pays a price premium to acquire them (similar to what AMD paid for ATI).


----------



## jyoung75 (Jul 12, 2008)

btarunr said:


> AMD’s survival is crucial for the entire computing industry as it keeps check on inflating prices by major players such as Intel and NVIDIA (who themselves are seeing bad days at the stock-markets these days).



This is exactly why the company is about to go under.  They aren't cost competitive with Intel yet continue to price lower than them (mainly because their technology and manufacturing processes are inferior yet they have to do something to maintain market share).  Result...Intel is making a boat load of money and AMD lost $3 billion in the last year.  That's dangerously close to bankruptcy which is what the stock reflects.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> keeping in mind also - however the numerous anti-trust investigations into Intel's practices turn out could seriously boost AMD's marketshare, and image, and their wallet as well.  Intel is under scrutiny by nearly a dozen or more different organizations throughout the world, and we've already seen Intel get slapped with one fine from Korea . . . that's just the tip of the ice berg.  If the US FTC finds Intel was in violation of fair-trade laws, Intel could be hit with a crippling fine, and could also be forced to pay AMD a certain amount as well . . .
> 
> 
> right now is a prime time to invest into AMD; if I had the money I definitely would.  Their share prices have been relatively stable for the last 6 months now;



This is why I invested about 18gs in them a month ago. AMD is fine. I don't gamble much and this has been a safe investment thus far. If IBM buys them out Ill make a killing. They are known for taking care of shareholders. There is a reason why they are a blue chip company.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

so the chances of good things may potentially be greater than bad things happening if i bought AMD stock.  1. they could get back up near intel. 2. if they go out they could sell to IBM or Samsung who would offer me more money than i bought the stock for now most likely. 
and the only bad thing would be 1. they go bankrupt. 

2-1 odds in my favor


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 12, 2008)

jyoung75 said:


> *Based on what? Q207 they had an operating loss of $457M, Q307 a loss of $226M, Q407 a loss of $1,753M, Q108 a loss of $264M....get the picture?  You can't lose $3 billion a year and stay in business.  Especially not in this environment where debt has become very expensive and the market is ridding itself of money losing and risky investments.*
> 
> The only hope AMD has is to deliver a victory in their CPU division similar to what ATI has just done to Nvidia (e.g., a GPU architecture that is significantly cheaper to manufacture and offers vastly superior performance).  They have to come out with a processor that is CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE and offers SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE to Nehalem, and they have to do it within the year.  Otherwise the CEO will be forced to resign (he's promised yet not delivered on turning around the company, Bobcat and other CPU designs continue not impress) and the company will be sold at a 'firesale' to IBM or Samsung.





sure, over the last year they've reported profit loss, but they also reported a slight increase in their market share as well . . .

IMO, and considering how much AMD has branched out over the last 8 months, I think they've been trying to terminate any major debts that they have . . . which would be a smart move on their part.


also, IIRC, it doesn't cost AMD too much to manufacturer the Phenoms . . . what bit them in the ass, though, was a manufacturing defect that was causing dead cores and another issue with the TLB and L3 cache that caused AMD to stall the Phenoms initial launch, and push motherboard manufacturers to release BIOS updates to address that issue.  By the time the Phenoms were finally ready to roll, coupled with the poor reviews they recieved, they just haven't sold all that well.


But, they say bad things come in sets of 3, eh?

Judging by the results of the Denreb engineering samples, it appears that AMD might finally have a CPU that boht OEMs and retail consumers would be very happy with.

Give AMD some time is all I'm saying, they're just in a slump still - every major company will go through a really bad period sooner or later.  If AMD was to be finished off, it would've happend a while ago.  

The fact that they've survived in a slump for this long, coupled with the fact that they've been able to acquire/merge with the second largest GPU manufacturer, and also branch out into more areas of the tech industry, says to me that they're _not_ going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This is why I invested about 18gs in them a month ago.



18gs damn thats alot.  i read once in a magazine my dad showed me of an example of buying $100 worth of stock in some large enterprize i think some airline or somthing and that $100 was turned into over 1million after a few decades.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

i just wanna make some money


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> 18gs damn thats alot.  i read once in a magazine my dad showed me of an example of buying $100 worth of stock in some large enterprize i think some airline or somthing and that $100 was turned into over 1million after a few decades.



Yeah but thats rare and assuming nothing happens to the company. I would have killed myself if I had that kind of investment in AA after 9/11. I do what I can to stay out of things that have to do with the safety of people. On the other hand Iv owned stock in a certain manufacture of firearms since the days of Clinton and since the start of these wars Iv been making a good chunk of change
I love supply and demand!


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 12, 2008)

What will happen if Nvidia and Intel have a monopoly? Is there something that goverments can do about it?


----------



## jyoung75 (Jul 12, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> What will happen if Nvidia and Intel have a monopoly? Is there something that goverments can do about it?



Not before you pay $18,790 for your next gaming rig


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> What will happen if Nvidia and Intel have a monopoly? Is there something that goverments can do about it?


Its damn near impossible to "prove" a monopoly. The only time was against Standard Oil back in the day. They couldnt even nail Microsoft just because of Linux, OSX and Unix. And what OS are you running


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 12, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its damn near impossible to "prove" a monopoly. The only time was against Standard Oil back in the day. They couldnt even nail Microsoft just because of Linux, OSX and Unix. And what OS are you running



If you go to the shop and you only buy CPU's en GPU's from one company, than it's 100% clear that there's a monoply.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> If you go to the shop and you only buy CPU's en GPU's from one company, than it's 100% clear that there's a monoply.



Its not that simple. IBM still makes chips and so does Via (is that how you spell it?) and since the government doesn't classify the need for a computer as "necessity" like oil or food then I think we are pretty much screwed. :shadedshu


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 12, 2008)

If IBM would buy AMD, that would be great. IBM is great at making CPU's but for some reason they don't sell to the regular consumer.


----------



## ThomasDM (Jul 12, 2008)

quasar923 said:


> 2. if they go out they could sell to IBM or Samsung who would offer me more money than i bought the stock for now most likely.



That will probably not happen as a takeover of AMD would be too costly and too risky. AMD is worth about $3 billion on the stock market but they also have a bit more than $5 billion in long term debt and IIRC another billion or so in short-term debt. An acquisition will likely cost more than $10 billion and all Samsung or IBM would get in return is an underperforming company that requires millions and millions of dollars to get back in the game.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

so now my odds are 1-1  hmmm.  but AMD has been in this predicament before and worse back in 2002.  theyll pull it off.


----------



## erocker (Jul 12, 2008)

Oh, the reports I'm getting from this thread...:shadedshu  People, it's not that hard... Stay on topic or don't post.  Capiche?  

Now, I'm one of the lucky people that bought AMD stock right before Phenom was released.  AMD stock has been running low for quite some time since then.  Sometimes with the stock market you have to stay in it for the long haul.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 12, 2008)

erocker said:


> Oh, the reports I'm getting from this thread...:shadedshu  People, it's not that hard... Stay on topic or don't post.  Capiche?
> 
> Now, I'm one of the lucky people that bought AMD stock right before Phenom was released.  AMD stock has been running low for quite some time since then.  Sometimes with the stock market you have to stay in it for the long haul.



Who's been off topic? And why would anyone "report" this thread?


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who's been off topic? And why would anyone "report" this thread?



yea!!?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

Wish I had $ to buy buy buy.

And the market is retarded. 5 dollars a share is waaaaay undervalued, but you gotta look at the base word of marketing....and you get the picture. It's all BS, just like so called market analysts that couldn't find their asses if they had the share value of google coming out in turds.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its not that simple. IBM still makes chips and so does Via (is that how you spell it?) and since the government doesn't classify the need for a computer as "necessity" like oil or food then I think we are pretty much screwed. :shadedshu



Well, worse yet, oil and food is rigged, too... So you can tell we're screwed when it comes to anything. I would wager that you could pay politicians to kill their mothers due to their insatiable greed.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 12, 2008)

trt740 said:


> this looking like spam to me since your myspace link is below your statement with your computer business link. Maybe it's just me but it sure appears that way.



no its not spam.  i havnt logged on to that myspace in idk how long.  fafa21 and i made that about over a year ago.  if it makes you happy i will delete it from my sig.


----------



## xvi (Jul 12, 2008)

mrw1986 said:


> It's great, because I bought AMD a few days when they were $5.57, now they are well under $5.00. Awesome.



What are *you* complaining about? I bought at $20.


----------



## erocker (Jul 12, 2008)

My point is don't bother reporting posts that don't need to be reported.


----------



## Dark_Webster (Jul 12, 2008)

Let's wait for the new Deneb architecture from AMD and let's see what happens. If at least is a competitor to the Core architecture, it isn't bad at all, it's always better than the Phenom.


----------



## suraswami (Jul 13, 2008)

jyoung75 said:


> See that's the problem...if you don't have the techology to command a premium in the marketplace, and you can only hold onto your market share by pricing close to cost, you're going to lose a crap load of money.  And if you're doing that your stock is going to fall in the toilet.
> 
> People have always cheered AMD for offering price competitive processors.  Yet their manufacturing processes, technology, and scale is far behind Intel so they are cost disadvantaged.  If AMD is cost disadvantaged yet sells their processors cheaper, they are going to be out of business in a few years.



I hope you can follow what you are writing or understand what is coming from your mind.  AMD is never inferior in tech.  FYI AMD manufactured initial days procs for Intel.  AMD innovated lots and lots of things in the proc world.  A64 - what do you think, this idea was pulled out of your a..?  Power saving features - who pioneered that?  Full 1080P - who achieved that?   Integrated memory controller was such a hit that Intel is forced to implement in their CPUs.

Bad things that AMD did was very f....g poor marketing, low incentives and failed to patent lot of its technologies (mainly 64 bit and integrated mem - AMD would have planted a bomb in Intel's a..).

Above all loads and loads of Bad mouth Intel farts floating in Tech stores.  Those farts boasted that the Netburst was the best of best cpus and made the customers idiots.  Tell me one sales guy who can exactly understand what your needs and give the right combination of power, functionality and savings?  Hardly 1% sincere sales people out there.  I myself got frustrated other day at Frys, when this high 50 year old guy is asking which PC would suit for general office use and internet browsing and this guy was selling him a Q6600 PC, ofcourse there is commisions, but that is the game, I do understand and it is sad.

It is just a bad phase for AMD (which is a smaller bold company challenging a giant now).  It will come back very soon (IBM/Samsung or any other big player will help this company to stand on its own again).

Until then I will keep on buying only AMD CPUs.

I think its time to help AMD directly by buying their stocks.  Should start a campaign for buying 10 shares each to 1 million people.


----------



## jyoung75 (Jul 13, 2008)

suraswami said:


> I hope you can follow what you are writing or understand what is coming from your mind.  AMD is never inferior in tech.  FYI AMD manufactured initial days procs for Intel.  AMD innovated lots and lots of things in the proc world.  A64 - what do you think, this idea was pulled out of your a..?  Power saving features - who pioneered that?  Full 1080P - who achieved that?   Integrated memory controller was such a hit that Intel is forced to implement in their CPUs.
> 
> Bad things that AMD did was very f....g poor marketing, low incentives and failed to patent lot of its technologies (mainly 64 bit and integrated mem - AMD would have planted a bomb in Intel's a..).
> 
> ...



OK AMD fan boy.   Yes AMD processors are inferior right now.  They cannot compete with the current generation of Intel quad cores on both a performance and cost basis.  Early review of the next generation Deneb show that it's going to be inferior to Intel's Nehalem as well.  So stop the fanboism.

And that is exactly why their stock sucks right now...


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 13, 2008)

I don't understand why AMD doesn't have a patent on 64bit and integrated memory controller. They did invent it, so what's up with that?

Updated:
I found on the www that Intel can use AMD technology and AMD can use Intel technology. They agreed to that in the 70's.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 13, 2008)

jyoung75 said:


> OK AMD fan boy.   Yes AMD processors are inferior right now.  They cannot compete with the current generation of Intel quad cores on both a performance and cost basis.  Early review of the next generation Deneb show that it's going to be inferior to Intel's Nehalem as well.  So stop the fanboism.
> 
> And that is exactly why their stock sucks right now...



just because AMD is behind in priceerformance does not make their CPUs technologically inferior

AMD got their start in the CPU market by reverse engineering Intel's CPUs ages ago and selling clones of that architecture - the clones were selling so well that Intel finally made AMD an official manufacturer of their CPUs.

AMD developed the 64bit technology . . . any Intel CPU that supports 64b technology didn't come from Intels R&D, that came from AMD.

AMD also developed the first dual-core CPU, and also pushed for having true multi-core processors instead of Intel's method of just stitching together multiple cores on a single die.

and let's not even get started on their tech advancements in other markets . . .


----------



## suraswami (Jul 13, 2008)

jyoung75 said:


> OK AMD fan boy.   Yes AMD processors are inferior right now.  They cannot compete with the current generation of Intel quad cores on both a performance and cost basis.  Early review of the next generation Deneb show that it's going to be inferior to Intel's Nehalem as well.  So stop the fanboism.
> 
> And that is exactly why their stock sucks right now...



Can you tell difference between 100 and 105 fps in games?  Can you tell by just starring at PC which CPU is powering it?  Can you tell the difference between 4.5 sec and 4.8 sec in video compilation times?

Most of AMD's CPUs are competetive.

Yes I am fanboi, but I am sensible to understand my customer's need when I prepare PCs for them, not like you just blindly saying something.

2 weeks back I built a E6750 + asus based for my friend.  He has many needs that PC needs to be satisfied and I recommended him that.  If he had asked me to just build a media pc a X2 4800 based PC is more than enough.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 13, 2008)

Someone needs to fish ATi out of AMD...


In terms of gaming use AMD loses out these days. 

However general tasks, I've actually noticed the AMD platforms are just a little bit quicker. Well, thats K8 versus Core 2.... I don't know how Phenom would fare however.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 13, 2008)

suraswami said:


> I hope you can follow what you are writing or understand what is coming from your mind.  *AMD is never inferior in tech.*


When it comes to manufacturing tech, yes they most certainly are. Intel is almost always 1 process ahead of them. For instance, Intel has been manufacturing on 45nm for how many months now? AMD has yet to release a 45nm cpu. Keep going back and you'll see that AMD is consistently behind Intel in this area. Intel released 65nm back in the Presler/prescott days, a time AMD was still on 90nm. AMD did not release a 65nm CPU until Brisbane, ages and ages after Intel. 

The larger processes AMD is using costs more to manufacture, because yields are lower. That is part of the reason they are losing their asses in the stock market. Their manufacturing tech is behind, making their margins much lower.



tkpenalty said:


> Someone needs to fish ATi out of AMD...
> 
> 
> In terms of gaming use AMD loses out these days.
> ...



K8 does not, in any way, perform better than Core2 in day to day use. If it did, you were comparing a really low end Core2, to a higher end AMD. IF anything, it's in gaming that you can't tell the difference. CPU makes little or no difference in 99% of modern games.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> When it comes to manufacturing tech, yes they most certainly are. Intel is almost always 1 process ahead of them. For instance, Intel has been manufacturing on 45nm for how many months now? AMD has yet to release a 45nm cpu. Keep going back and you'll see that AMD is consistently behind Intel in this area. Intel released 65nm back in the Presler/prescott days, a time AMD was still on 90nm. AMD did not release a 65nm CPU until Brisbane, ages and ages after Intel.
> 
> The larger processes AMD is using costs more to manufacture, because yields are lower. That is part of the reason they are losing their asses in the stock market. Their manufacturing tech is behind, making their margins much lower.
> 
> ...



Might just be me but some of my friends who've switched to intel have said the same thing. No we ARENT talking about benchmarks. We are talking about _general use_, example loading times for windows etc.

Yes, AMD's low atm is partially due to weak advertising... its one part which really is their achilles heel. Back in the K8 days I didn't see AMD even bother to advertise its products to a substantial extent, even though Intel CLEARLY was crapper. However, the consumer didn't know that. The average consumer didn't even know about the performance difference; how their low ends were faster than even intel's top end...

That is one example of why AMD is suffering at the moment...

ATi since the merger, well has just gone quiet in terms of advertising.


Funny how the actual company doesn't really matter when it comes to the financial standpoint


----------



## Wile E (Jul 13, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> Might just be me but some of my friends who've switched to intel have said the same thing. No we ARENT talking about benchmarks. We are talking about _general use_, example loading times for windows etc.
> 
> Yes, AMD's low atm is partially due to weak advertising... its one part which really is their achilles heel. Back in the K8 days I didn't see AMD even bother to advertise its products to a substantial extent, even though Intel CLEARLY was crapper. However, the consumer didn't know that. The average consumer didn't even know about the performance difference; how their low ends were faster than even intel's top end...
> 
> ...


The difference in Loading times for Windows can be attributed directly to the different mobos. My AMD rig does boot faster, but it also doesn't have a RAID array, or nearly the same amount of features as my Intel board. But the Intels I have are plainly faster in usage for everything else compared to my 6400+. My intel cpus consisted of an E6420, E6600, E6750, Q6600, QX9650.


But back on topic: Yeah, I agree, the lack of advertising has to play a major role in all of this as well.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The difference in Loading times for Windows can be attributed directly to the different mobos. My AMD rig does boot faster, but it also doesn't have a RAID array, or nearly the same amount of features as my Intel board. But the Intels I have are plainly faster in usage for everything else compared to my 6400+. My intel cpus consisted of an E6420, E6600, E6750, Q6600, QX9650.
> 
> 
> But back on topic: Yeah, I agree, the lack of advertising has to play a major role in all of this as well.



Derailing topic: I remember the time when you were an AMD fanboi. What happened to that?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 13, 2008)

the other determining factor is how many apps are being launched during boot.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 13, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> Derailing topic: I remember the time when you were an AMD fanboi. What happened to that?



I was never a fanboy of either. I just buy what performs better for what I want to spend. When and If AMD ever regains the crown, I'll be jumping back. In fact, I can't wait for that to happen, because that should bring the high-end prices down to a reasonable level. I also wish my AM2 board would take a Phenom. I'd slap a 9850 or 9950 in there in a heartbeat.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 13, 2008)

what is your AM2 board?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 13, 2008)

DFI NF Ultra II M2


----------



## suraswami (Jul 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> When it comes to manufacturing tech, yes they most certainly are. Intel is almost always 1 process ahead of them. For instance, Intel has been manufacturing on 45nm for how many months now? AMD has yet to release a 45nm cpu. Keep going back and you'll see that AMD is consistently behind Intel in this area. Intel released 65nm back in the Presler/prescott days, a time AMD was still on 90nm. AMD did not release a 65nm CPU until Brisbane, ages and ages after Intel.
> 
> The larger processes AMD is using costs more to manufacture, because yields are lower. That is part of the reason they are losing their asses in the stock market. Their manufacturing tech is behind, making their margins much lower.
> 
> ...




Hey, I didn't write about their manufacturing process.  See what I wrote,
"FYI AMD manufactured initial days procs for Intel. AMD innovated lots and lots of things in the proc world. A64 - what do you think, this idea was pulled out of your a..? Power saving features - who pioneered that? Full 1080P - who achieved that? Integrated memory controller was such a hit that Intel is forced to implement in their CPUs."

You agree on that?  That is technical advancement.  Intel suck at it.  Why do you think Intel went to 65nm?  Because they were shit scared that their prescotts will explode, they need to bring down their heat output, so they can increase their frequency and OEMs won't f....g complain about using better thermal management solutions.  Yeah well they continued on their 45nm path because they had money.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 13, 2008)

suraswami said:


> Hey, I didn't write about their manufacturing process.  See what I wrote,
> "FYI AMD manufactured initial days procs for Intel. AMD innovated lots and lots of things in the proc world. A64 - what do you think, this idea was pulled out of your a..? Power saving features - who pioneered that? Full 1080P - who achieved that? Integrated memory controller was such a hit that Intel is forced to implement in their CPUs."
> 
> You agree on that?  That is technical advancement.  Intel suck at it.  Why do you think Intel went to 65nm?  Because they were shit scared that their prescotts will explode, they need to bring down their heat output, so they can increase their frequency and OEMs won't f....g complain about using better thermal management solutions.  Yeah well they continued on their 45nm path because they had money.


You only addressed one aspect of tech. I addressed another. While AMD has served us some rather large tech advancements, their manufacturing tech has always been behind. That little fact is hurting them pretty badly now.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 13, 2008)

must company's fight amd , cuz it the no 1 competitive , time to support amd guys it is better for as


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 13, 2008)

the old expect thing is amd reach the no1 seals with ati 4xxx , but the game play of nvidia which is called physics heart amd , and amd go no ware cuz only agiea made physics ,amd help people to got better rig in minimum price , god bless amd


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 13, 2008)

you know something intel doesnt do as much adverts either. My brother still thinks his Turion x2 is slower than a P4, he still thinks an Intel Pentium4 is king no matter what i tell him. I remember the Intel commercials


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 13, 2008)

*ahem* without.... giving away just how much money I may or may not have... how much would AMD be needing to be bailed out? Anyone know?


----------



## Voyager (Jul 13, 2008)

That's because oil prices rise


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 13, 2008)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oL8y-u96jo4&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JeI7wxpqKtI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H4O4HFgVMbc&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lE3QDQz-QTI&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=51SY7y6ovzU&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4z1kDFN6z74&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1UMrDaEk170&feature=related

looking at these 4 which advert do you think is best, some of the ones i remember for advert for intel

AMD;s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7MQgAmFWiWY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fk-2ic2BoZw&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lGnhgH_TPCQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mLysjIFOPE&NR=1

what i found on youtube this is why they hurt though the AMD one for the Athlon is funny


----------



## btarunr (Jul 13, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> *ahem* without.... giving away just how much money I may or may not have... how much would AMD be needing to be bailed out? Anyone know?



US $ 850 million or a processor that makes Intel QX9770 look like ENIAC. Whichever comes first.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 13, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> http://youtube.com/watch?v=oL8y-u96jo4&feature=related
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=JeI7wxpqKtI
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=H4O4HFgVMbc&feature=related
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=lE3QDQz-QTI&feature=related
> ...



The AMD ads dont make sense... Intel's do.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 13, 2008)

btarunr said:


> US $ 850 million or a processor that makes Intel QX9770 look like ENIAC. Whichever comes first.



Hmm.... I don't have THAT much obviously, but I could possibly bail them out for a respectable percentage... I dunno. Betting on any AMD horse is risky these days I don't want to lose what I inject into them, I may as well burn it or flush it down the bog myself.


----------



## Triprift (Jul 13, 2008)

Any money put on Amd atm is risky cus the chances of losing are great but hopefully given some time AMD will come good.


----------



## quasar923 (Jul 13, 2008)

I think AMD will be fine because a lot of people see the good deal in their stock and will want to buy it giving AMD more money.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> When it comes to manufacturing tech, yes they most certainly are. Intel is almost always 1 process ahead of them. For instance, Intel has been manufacturing on 45nm for how many months now? AMD has yet to release a 45nm cpu. Keep going back and you'll see that AMD is consistently behind Intel in this area. Intel released 65nm back in the Presler/prescott days, a time AMD was still on 90nm. AMD did not release a 65nm CPU until Brisbane, ages and ages after Intel.
> 
> The larger processes AMD is using costs more to manufacture, because yields are lower. That is part of the reason they are losing their asses in the stock market. Their manufacturing tech is behind, making their margins much lower.



woah now AMD's manufacturing tech is miles ahead of intels! even intel themselves have said there is no way in hell they could have made something as complicated and large as phenom on 65nm. AMD has the best manuf specs of any company right now.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 13, 2008)

cdawall said:


> woah now AMD's manufacturing tech is miles ahead of intels! even intel themselves have said there is no way in hell they could have made something as complicated and large as phenom on 65nm. AMD has the best manuf specs of any company right now.



Who cares how complicated the design is. The phenom is slow, that's all what I care about. The phenom can not or hardly be overclocked, that's what I care about.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 13, 2008)

Early Phenoms couldnt be OCd. Later revisions that changed. I seen Phenoms of 3GHz+ in the wild. The whole reason Phenoms aren't miracle clockers is because their too complex for the space the cores are squished into.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 13, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Early Phenoms couldnt be OCd. Later revisions that changed.* I seen Phenoms of 3GHz+ in the wild.* The whole reason Phenoms aren't miracle clockers is because their too complex for the space the cores are squished into.



I love how that's phrased . . . like you've been out on safari or something 

do you have a special on Discovery that will be airing sometime soon?


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 13, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Early Phenoms couldnt be OCd. Later revisions that changed. I seen Phenoms of 3GHz+ in the wild. The whole reason Phenoms aren't miracle clockers is because their too complex for the space the cores are squished into.



Look, in order for AMD to compete with Intel, they have to release CPU's that are as fast or can be as fast when overclocked, and that's not the case. In many shops the Black Edition CPU's are more expensive then the Q6600 and E8400 and they can not be overclocked to the same speeds.

The Phenoms are a joke. Released such a long time after the intel Q CPU's and they are slower and can not be overclocked as high. Sorry. But only a fanboy or a ignorant consumer would go for AMD at this time.

I would love it if AMD was better, they just arent, you know that very well.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 13, 2008)

cdawall said:


> woah now AMD's manufacturing tech is miles ahead of intels! even intel themselves have said there is no way in hell they could have made something as complicated and large as phenom on 65nm. AMD has the best manuf specs of any company right now.



I'm talking about the manufacturing process in use itself, not the chip design. Think it thru here. The smaller the process used, the higher the yields, and the larger the profit margin. Intel has had 45nm on the market for months now, AMD is just stamping out their 45nm cpus. Intel is on the fast track to 32nm, again, something AMD is behind on. AMD manufacturing tech is behind, and it is hurting their profit margins in these price wars.

And Intel said that for good reason. Look at the power usage and heat output of Phenoms compared to the Intel quads. It's not that intel couldn't have put a chip that complicated on a 65nm process, it's that it didn't make any sense to. Thus the reason they waited to build Nehalem on 45nm. If AMD could've manufactured Phenom on a 45nm process to begin with, they would have. But they couldn't, because their manufacturing tech is behind, plain and simple.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 13, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Look, in order for AMD to compete with Intel, they have to release CPU's that are as fast or can be as fast when overclocked, and that's not the case. In many shops the Black Edition CPU's are more expensive then the Q6600 and E8400 and they can not be overclocked to the same speeds.
> 
> The Phenoms are a joke. Released such a long time after the intel Q CPU's and they are slower and can not be overclocked as high. Sorry. But only a fanboy or a ignorant consumer would go for AMD at this time.
> 
> I would love it if AMD was better, they just arent, you know that very well.



I wasn't arguing any of that. Stop being so ignorant yourself. If you care to look at my sys spec, you'll see I'm an intel user


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 14, 2008)

I wouldn't call a drop from $5.23 to $4.84 or an 8% drop a  "bloodbath" more like an resulting drop fram a straving economy. nv's drop from $18 to $12 or 34% was more of a "bloodbath" but the market is bad right now which means predicitons about companies stock are alos bad one right now disney is down, intel is down, ibm is down. I hardly call this news worthy. In fact, you've stolen 5 minutes of my life and I want them back!


----------



## Megasty (Jul 14, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> I wouldn't call a drop from $5.23 to $4.84 or an 8% drop a  "bloodbath" more like an resulting drop fram a straving economy. nv's drop from $18 to $12 or 34% was more of a "bloodbath" but the market is bad right now which means predicitons about companies stock are alos bad one right now disney is down, intel is down, ibm is down. I hardly call this news worthy. *In fact, you've stolen 5 minutes of my life and I want them back!*





Its definitely not a bloodbath, more like losing a few fingers or a hand. On the other hand, NV is dying in a pool of their own blood. But NV is a vampire that suck the lifeblood from other companies as well as unknowing consumers. They'll always come back to life


----------



## Triprift (Jul 14, 2008)

Lol someones getting carried away just cus a companies successful doesnt mean there evil


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jul 14, 2008)

Triprift said:


> Lol someones getting carried away just cus a companies successful doesnt mean there evil



Nvidia is evil. They renamed the Geforce 8 products as Geforce 9 cards. In my book, that's pure evil


----------



## jcfougere (Jul 14, 2008)

If anyone knows how to go about buying some stocks in AMD, please send me an email:

jcfougere@gmail.com


AMd is turning heads with this round in graphics, which will secure investors.  Stocks this low are begging to be bought, I want to take the risk and ride with them!


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 15, 2008)

Im not too worried about it. I think Ill divert like 30% of my 401k stock buying into AMD stock. As low as it is, and when they get increases, Ill increase my net worth


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 15, 2008)

If they go out of business its simply because of a lack of marketing and securing deals with OEM's also if they focused on making a strong lineup of midrange cpu's for OEM's they would be in a better position. Also is there such thing as an AMD advertisement.


----------



## Megasty (Jul 15, 2008)

In the past week, I've already bought 500 shares of AMD. I should buy another 500, too damn dirt cheap :shadedshu 

I'm still waiting for NV to reach the bottom of the pit so I can sop some dough in them as well.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 15, 2008)

first off AMD CPU's do not suck at all. The E4xxx, E1xxx and E2xxx are all beat by AMD chips at stock speeds thanks to cache nutering. Under 100 bucks AMD is the better buy if you can't OC because of board limits be it OEM or budget board, or you just dont care about overclocking, in that respect AKA 90% of the market will never overclock so AMD is a better buy right there.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 15, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> first off AMD CPU's do not suck at all. The E4xxx, E1xxx and E2xxx are all beat by AMD chips at stock speeds thanks to cache nutering. Under 100 bucks AMD is the better buy if you can't OC because of board limits be it OEM or budget board, or you just dont care about overclocking, in that respect AKA 90% of the market will never overclock so AMD is a better buy right there.



I didn't mean they sucked I mean that the quad phenom should have been marketed and priced to compete with the q6600 which is beginning to be sold in OEM pc's but I haven't seen any phenoms sold at for example pcworld, curry's and comet which sell almost intel exclusively.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 16, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> first off AMD CPU's do not suck at all. The E4xxx, E1xxx and E2xxx are all beat by AMD chips at stock speeds thanks to cache nutering. Under 100 bucks AMD is the better buy if you can't OC because of board limits be it OEM or budget board, or you just dont care about overclocking, in that respect AKA 90% of the market will never overclock so AMD is a better buy right there.


No, the the E2*** and E4*** series don't lose to the AMD in the same price target. Only the E1*** series does.


----------



## Jansku07 (Jul 16, 2008)

w00t, AMD over 5$ now (5,03!!).  http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/nasdaqlastsale.aspx?symbol=AMD&selected=AMD


----------



## Megasty (Jul 16, 2008)

bah, I just sold mine & made 49 cent a share


----------



## Jansku07 (Jul 16, 2008)

Thats gr8 man! =) Got a lot of AMD stock?


----------



## Megasty (Jul 16, 2008)

Jansku07 said:


> Thats gr8 man! =) Got a lot of AMD stock?



only about 2.8 grand worth, don't want to see it go down the tube with this lawsuit bs floating around...


----------

