Hi guys,

I found this on Yahoo's finance site:
http://biz.yahoo.com/zacks/080527/12903.html?.v=1

The red highlight is my own, not the author's. Does anybody have any idea what he's talking about?
Thanks!

perhaps the author feels they have the technological lead (that took so much brain power it was astonishing)

regardless of if the author is right or wrong i believe you are confusing performance lead with technological lead. there is a difference.

Could be referring to the fact that the phenoms and barcelona are true quad core compared to the core 2 quads.

Nothing like contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

High debt level and questions about execution, and the author is bullish on the stock? Glad he's not managing my portfolio.

I don't think even he knows what he's talking about.

...this translating into what real-world benefit?

Look this topic has been discussed to death about a hundred times on these forums. When are you guys going to give it a rest? AMD doesn't suck and they don't own either, get that into your thick skulls. (Preemptive posting)

Their product may sucketh not, but their execution sucketh mightily.

^Agreed!

I believe this is due to AMD being first to release quad cores using 65 watts, this will make a big difference to data centers where power efficiency and heat are of great concern. Remember also that server CPU's generate much more profit for Intel and AMD than desktop processors and this would be of interest to investors.

Getting back to Aevm's original question, having been in stocks for over 40 years, I think I can venture an explanation, not withstanding that the writer of the article should have been a bit more clear in what he tried to say, and I may be getting his intention wrong regardless.

Yes, the writer may be bullish on the stock, but he's thinking long term and not short term when he says he wants to take a "wait and see approach". In other words, he thinks AMD will go up in price eventually, but don't buy quite yet. Part of the reason is that AMD does not pay a dividend, so any money invested right now is sitting there wasting time and not doing anything profitable. For an investor, this is a chancy thing. The time to buy is always at or about its lowest. The good side of chance exists that AMD might come out with something good and the stock will take off. This is especially true when considering that AMD produces more than CPUs, but also video cards (ATI) and chipsets. The bad side of chance is that either the current recession will hold back AMD not matter how good a product it produces, or that it will be a long time before AMD turns out another really good moneymaking product.

As for the technology lead, that might be referring to the fact that AMD has managed to produce a quad core chip that (finally) works, whereas Intel is still using two glued together chips in its quads. On a bright side, all AMD needs to do is to figure out how to raise the performance of the chip, not design one from scratch. As Strangestranger pointed out, this is a difference between technology and performance. AND needs to improve its performance of its quad core, while at the moment, Intel needs to design and sell a monolithic quad core chip, as well as making it perform. On the cloudy side, the average customer at Best Buy doesn't know the differences between monolithic quad core and glued quad core. He only knows that Intel's quad runs faster. As enthusiasts, we know the differences, but our purchases are a drop in the bucket compared to total sales.

Hopes this helps, Aevm.

That may not be much of a technological leap: http://www.formortals.com/Home/tab [...] fault.aspx

Thanks Sailer. Yes, I think that's it.

Spongebob, I love your signature

And why should they care even if they knew? WHat real-world benefit does a monolithic quad buy the end user? For AMD's part, it seems to have been more of a liability up to this point.

Any news article that ends with "OMG AMD4LIFE!!1!" is obviously garbage.

Technological lead, lawl. Just because something is more complicated doesn't mean it is better technology.

Results matter, how you get there does not.