Last message on previous page:

Then how will AMD be profitable if they can only compete Q6600 on price points, when the cost of Phenom is significantly higher than Q6600? Having more revenue doesn't mean there will be more profits. AMD is about 5 billion in debt, and they've just posted their 5th consecutive loss in Q3.

When Intel's quad core outperforms it by a noticeable margin, while costing a lot less? Dell won't take orders from AMD if they know AMD can't satisfy the volume needed. Same with HP, and Gateway.

It will be a while before Phenom pops on the OEM market.

Fanbase?

But in all honesty, most enthusiasts communities have left AMD for Intel. OEMs only do AMD's dual core business, and quad core in servers (which, is still not available at this point). Phenom will sell. The question is, how much, and how much AMD can make from it?

As someone already said before, if you game at 1280x1024 or above, then what's the difference between a dual core and a quad core? Phenom was outperformed by its own 6000+ in numerous benchmarks, and nearly all of the games.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/1 [...] age25.html

I don't know if this analyst is any good, but he sure is funny:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/ma [...] 641_2.html
10. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating): I have no idea why anybody would consider buying AMD when you can buy Intel (INTC - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating). Do yourself a favor: Whenever you feel like typing in A-M-D, teach your muscles to type I-N-T-C. -- SELL

Edit: I think I'll buy if it reaches $9.

If AMD gets back on track it would be a great buy right now. More than likely it will; but there's a lot of risk right now.

All I can say is that AMD has no extra cash. That 622million did nothing to that 5.8billion+ they owe.

Grimmy thanks for showing the performance differenc there. I had yet to see what a QX9650 that uses less power than a Phenom 9700 and even 9600 could do except wipe the floor with them.

Either way AMDs stock isnt skyrocketing like it should have with claims of 40% better performance. Those Phenoms should have sold like hotcakes but it seems that the Q6600 is selling like hotcakes.

Fun time. They put a smile on my face.

Cramer has made some good calls, but he's had his share of bad ones as well. I watched him this morning admitting to a particualrly bad call in which he said he personally lost about $100,000. No telling how many millions were lost by those who took his advice. Though I have a degree of respect for him, I also know think a lot of average people who did some study could do just as well as if they never heard of him or took his advice.

AMD is a high risk stock at the moment, but its also one that I think is worthwhile for someone who has some money to gamble. At least its a far better gamble than those who drop their money in slot machines here in Nevada. I looked over his picks and pans on the link you provided and see that he panned Washington Mutual as well, yet WM, selling at about $19, has a P/E rating of 9, which is very good, a dividend yield of about 12%, which is excellent, and has a good chance of going back towards $40 where is was a few months ago. Even if it stays at $19, the 12% yield is a very good interest rate.

Picking and buying stocks is not for the faint hearted. It takes individual research, weighing the odds, and then putting down some money. It also means being willing to stay with a stock for a term and not panic selling at every hickup that occurs. Myself, I bought some AMD stock last Friday. Its very low at the moment and has a good chance of increasing far enough to make me some money. I also bought some Washington Mutual. U.S Treasury Secratary Paulson is meeting with Congress in plans to bail out the home loan industry and that should boost WM substantially.

I have no way to prove this, but I'd bed to venture that people have gained more money than lost on Cramer's advice; but that's also the nature of the stock market, if you're diversified enough in a growing stock market you'll only gain money.

Your missing the point that Sailer and I are talking about.
We don't care who's company stock "holds value" as that does not earn us money...I buy and sale 1K of shares at a time and both of us don't really want the stock to hold steady or only go up $2 a -year.
Waiting for a dividend check on Intel is lost income vrs other investments that pay higher intrest as well.
I bring that up as AMD does not pay dividends at all.

I no longer build homes and stock buy/sales are how I could afford to go fishing for the past 5 months while paying my bills rather than dig into saveings.

@ Sailer...
I was staying in Alturas for my "base" on this last fishing trip...must have drove past your place on the way and back (or near it).

You may have. I live close to Carson City, Nevada. I was up through Alturas last summer. Beautiful country. I used to fishing there years ago, along with the high lakes around Lake Almanor. I've taken to ocean sailing and fishing now.

Yes indeed, buying stocks in the thousands of shares, holding until there's a some profit and then selling is how I get to go on vacations, buy cars, and afford other pleasures of life. I do have a few long term stocks that pay a steady dividend, but its short term buys and sells that seem to pay best. Buy a few thousand, watch it go up a dollar, and my vacation in the islands last summer got paid for. And all the work I did was press computer keys a few times.

What you two propose is very risky. Money Management among a host of other things would need to be taken into account.

With AMD sub $10 a share what do you do now? buy more? If the one stock does tank how low must it go before you pull the plug or lose it all? Stock trading fees could also eat a good amount of profits as well. It's much riskier than you both let on.

Precisely ignore that one, why? because thats more a cpu test than a cpu in a gaming environment test. You wont actually game at that resolution and detail setting, will you?

I dont deny that I enjoy "stiring the pot" a little, bringing all the interesting smells to the top, but then again, tell me the phenom isnt marketable in any way, shape or form, and that it will not be taken up by an oem an a section of the enthusiast community. Lets bring this up again when the q4 results are in.

On the subject of uk pricing and availability, take a look for yourself!

"3870 will be a great deal, but probably only to those with Xfire boards. Dell was selling 8800GT @ 210USD a pop. But I agree, RV670 will probably be a break even for ATi, and cover up some losses from R600 debacle. To say it will be profitable is a little stretching it."

So you think it will lose money for amd?

The aforementioned links,

Rising sales:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/po [...] d.html?rel

Cash on hand with projection of new figure including recent share sales:

http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 461,00.asp

...and yes im aware of the contents of these articles! but concerning the figures or wooly claims I have made they are sufficient. There are some more if thats not enough for your perusal, but I will have to hunt for them so there will be a delay in getting back.

What? Errr, that is exactly what it is. Its testing the CPU in a game environment, which is depending on the CPU. If I have a low-end card, perhaps I would run it the best I can, which will be CPU dependent. Not everyone is going to be able to get a nice high end for their rig.

What's the point in bring up any CPU, when its a gaming environment on those tests if you have a high end video card? I mean there is no point in my case, using an E4400 OC to 3ghz with a 8800GTS on the side. But hey, I'm glad I have my system, over phenom at this time.

Or have you ever thought why that chart sticks out like a sore thumb for phenom? Maybe answering that question, you could come up with some constructive comments.... or maybe not.

When you recall a bunch of Phenom chips that equates to loss in revenue

Well its a difference of viewpoint i guess, something that is allowed on forums last time i checked . If you had a low end card and were gaming at 800x600 low detail, chances are you wouldnt have any of the processors on the chart from earlier anyway, or anything in that league.

Taking results from settings approaching what people actually game at would appear to myself more useful of say, how cpu dependent a game is, or is not. Then making the higher resolution higher detail results more, ...relevant?