Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD's regrets (Link)
- Thread starter spectrumbx
- Start date
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
duby229, have you looked at AMD's stock in the past few months or even the past year? From $35 to $13?
Intel is only down to where it was a year ago.
Why do you think it is?
Intel is only down to where it was a year ago.
Why do you think it is?
I could also buy a bunch of stock and it would be back at 30$ next week... But that doesnt reflect one iota on the companies financial condition.
Stock means nothing, unless your an investor... Otherwise it is not a gage of reality.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
You are too far gone my friend.
A stock's price tells several stories including expected future earnings and competitive environment.
With all due respect dubby, you are sounding a bit ridiculous right now. You consistently put off unfavorable AMD news as nonsense and meaningless despite several sources to the contrary, even if that source is from AMD themselves.
Stock prices meaningless? That's a new one. Stock price alone may not mean too much, but when you take a look at a companies history and see a steady decline over a relatively long period of time, well.. That definitely means something.
You also failed to answer my question that I posed a while ago. You said that the quad core market is incredibly small, but at the same time you said that if AMD used their resources to develop quad core CPU's, that it would severely hurt their capacity to manufacture dual core CPU's, in fact, I believe at one point you said it would cut their capacity by half. So which is it? Both your statements CANNOT be true.
If quad core demand is incredibly small, then it should have a negligible effect on AMD's ability to produce dual core CPU's. If developing quad core does in fact have the effect you say it will, then the demand cannot be as small as you say it is.
Stock prices meaningless? That's a new one. Stock price alone may not mean too much, but when you take a look at a companies history and see a steady decline over a relatively long period of time, well.. That definitely means something.
You also failed to answer my question that I posed a while ago. You said that the quad core market is incredibly small, but at the same time you said that if AMD used their resources to develop quad core CPU's, that it would severely hurt their capacity to manufacture dual core CPU's, in fact, I believe at one point you said it would cut their capacity by half. So which is it? Both your statements CANNOT be true.
If quad core demand is incredibly small, then it should have a negligible effect on AMD's ability to produce dual core CPU's. If developing quad core does in fact have the effect you say it will, then the demand cannot be as small as you say it is.
No offense Friend, but it is known fact the the stock market is a fiat market. It isnt real. Your investing in nothing more then an expectation. Your putting your hard earned dollars into a trust?
Sorry, but that simply cannot measure a companies financial situation. The simple truth is that right now AMD is making a freakin ton of money.. Yes they are spending it faster then they are making it, but the stock market becouse of its nature simply cannot gage that activity.
The stock market CAN give you an idea of profit, but ONLY if the stock remains inactive. As soon as you begin buying and selling shares, it fluctuates, and any basis for comparison is thrown out the door. Its fiat money. The only thing that matters is the hard numbers, and the hard numbers show that AMD is making money right now. It also shows that they are spending it faster then they are making it. This is a problem but only if your an invester.
Sorry, but that simply cannot measure a companies financial situation. The simple truth is that right now AMD is making a freakin ton of money.. Yes they are spending it faster then they are making it, but the stock market becouse of its nature simply cannot gage that activity.
The stock market CAN give you an idea of profit, but ONLY if the stock remains inactive. As soon as you begin buying and selling shares, it fluctuates, and any basis for comparison is thrown out the door. Its fiat money. The only thing that matters is the hard numbers, and the hard numbers show that AMD is making money right now. It also shows that they are spending it faster then they are making it. This is a problem but only if your an invester.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
duby vs the world threads are getting old these daysI disagree... How convenient that you failed to respond (for the 2nd time now) to the second part of my post. That there tells me that you're just running off at the mouth against anything anti-amd and not even really knowing what you're saying, thus, contradicting yourself.
Um.... the dollar is a fiat currency. Judging by your use of the word, AMD's revenue is also worthless because they made dollars. Because dollars are a fiat currency and its value can rise and fall then AMD's revenue is worthless. Right? The value of the dollar isn't real, it's only derived in our trust and recognition of paper money as legal tender and the fact that the US government recognizes it as such. It's about trust.
You know nothing about markets or investing so I will leave that alone. You are basically basing all of your statements on dotbomb, Enron, and "Wall Street" experience. There is a very large field called fundamental analysis. Investment banks and analysts examine a company's current stock value with their fundamental stock value. Investment decisions are based upon this. Large investment companies also examine factors such as ASP, margins, revenue, debt, expenditures, and greater market potential. AMD's falling price indicates that investors don't have confidence in AMD's potential to turn a reliable profit. I know you'll just dismiss what I write, so there isn't much use in wasting any more of my time, but you are misguided. If you want more information, go here:
http://news.morningstar.com/article/pfarticle.asp?id=14141&_QSBPA=Y
I know you won't and you'll end up saying that Morningstar is nothing but opinion, but I think you should at least give it a shot.
The hard numbers show that AMD is losing money. You are stuck on revenue. If I go to a bank, take out a billion dollar loan, use that money to produce a product that I sell for 500 million, am I making tons of money? No, I just lost 500 million dollars. Making money is about making profit. I could make 10 billions dollars, but if I spent 11 billion dollars making it then all I did was lose 1 billion dollars. That's a problem no matter who you are. AMD doesn't remain in business because of good intentions.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Yep. At least AMD finally gets it, even if it is a bit late. No one cares if your die is native, or if your new architecture supports NUMA if it can't beat what the competition has already had for months (and soon to be more at a lower price). Maybe they won't make this same mistake when it comes time for Octo-core processors.
Native or not?
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1150008&highlight=AMD+Native+Quad+Core
When will Intel go native dual/multi core??
01-28-2007, 12:08 PM
Scali2
So another catch phrase jumps up and bites them on the @$$!
So two of the Old K8 or even two Brisbanes, glue them together and they would still get be out gunned. But it would have given them practice for the Newer improved models.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1150008&highlight=AMD+Native+Quad+Core
When will Intel go native dual/multi core??
01-28-2007, 12:08 PM
Scali2
§kynet said:
Scali2 said:
So another catch phrase jumps up and bites them on the @$$!
Donnie27 said:
So two of the Old K8 or even two Brisbanes, glue them together and they would still get be out gunned. But it would have given them practice for the Newer improved models.