Aceshardware

Richard Van Den Boom · Joined: 13 Aug 2007 Posts: 84

WaltC wrote:

As it's been stated repeatedly, it's because of the confidence that investors have in AMD that they've bought AMD's notes. You have to realize that AMD has sold notes many times in its past--the two times you mention are merely the latests examples. AMD has a track record established with investors of being good for the notes it sells, and *that's why* investors continue to buy them. This doesn't seem as well understood as it should be, for some reason.

Well, I seem to remember an article and several posts from Charlie saying investors were really pissed off by AMD after it announced a huge loss in the end of 2006.
And I tend from my distance to share Paul's opinion that JSIII seemed more cautious in the way he managed the company than Ruiz (more fun too :-)).
But, well, I'm not familiar with all the aspects of investments so I'll take your word. :-)

DUCK of DEATH · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 104

WaltC wrote:

Investors are very much aware of this reality--which is one reason they continue to invest in AMD.

Is that why their stock price has gone from $42 to $12.75 in such a short period of time?

Ford Prefect · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 65

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

Is that why their stock price has gone from $42 to $12.75 in such a short period of time?

And that is still 4 times what the stock price was before Opteron came out.

TacoBell · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 287

Ford Prefect wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

Is that why their stock price has gone from $42 to $12.75 in such a short period of time?

And that is still 4 times what the stock price was before Opteron came out.

A decade ago this week it was about $16.75.

DUCK of DEATH · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 104

Ford Prefect wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

Is that why their stock price has gone from $42 to $12.75 in such a short period of time?

And that is still 4 times what the stock price was before Opteron came out.

Wait a few months.

WaltC · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 12

Paul DeMone wrote:

One has to wonder how either stupid or at one with dishonesty someone
would have to be to think the transistor count was the issue, not a CEO
who blatantly lies about his products and makes false claims of technical
firsts for his company.

How about simply considering the simplest answer fitting the facts? You'd like to paint the AMD CEO as someone who is being deliberately dishonest in the hopes of deceiving large numbers of people--by claiming in one of the many interviews he does--more transistors for a product than AMD lists on its own web site for that product.

Think about how unlikely that is, for a host of reasons, and you may conclude as I certainly did that it is much more likely that Hector simply has a lot on his plate and that whatever he was thinking of when he said what he said was something else...;) Someone else mentioned the fact that Hector is also privy to upcoming AMD cpu configurations--information which none of us is privy to--and so I think it certainly possible that he was indeed talking about something else when he made that statement. Therefore, I think it it much more likely that Hector simply had a "slip of the tongue" in that interview, assuming of course that the interview wasn't edited before it was published and that the mistake wasn't actually made by the editor.

In other words, there are far more reasonable explanations here than merely the single concept that Hector is deliberately lying, especially when you consider that even his own company's web site is in disagreement with his statement as quoted in the interview.

Judging by how much this has upset you, though, it looks to me like you were planning on buying Barcelona yourself until you discovered that (a) Barcelona didn't have as many transistors as Hector led you to believe, or (2) you thought Hector was perfect and now you've become bitterly disillusioned on discovering that he isn't...;)

WaltC · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 12

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

Is that why their stock price has gone from $42 to $12.75 in such a short period of time?

No. I was referring to how AMD was able to raise several billion dollars in investment capital in two separate offerings that were opened and closed in the the space of one week combined. While the stock price surely refers to one kind of investor, the sale of AMD's notes involves another kind of investor.

Paul DeMone · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 530 Location: Great white north

WaltC wrote:

Judging by how much this has upset you, though, it looks to me like you were planning on buying Barcelona yourself until you discovered that (a) Barcelona didn't have as many transistors as Hector led you to believe, or (2) you thought Hector was perfect and now you've become bitterly disillusioned on discovering that he isn't...;)

I am not upset, merely amused by the deafening silence from, and
appalling hypocrisy of AMD partisans. Hector isn't some pimply faced
teen sales geek at Fry's. He is the CEO of a public corporation and
has significant legal requirements to tell the truth about his company.
He made a specific claim about AMD achieving a certain milestone of
device integration ahead of competitors that is straight out wrong.
BTW, a lot of public figures in recent years have gotten into serious
trouble, even jail time, not because of their actions but because of
their lies. I doubt Hector will get into trouble over these statements
but if he keeps this practice up and someone like the SEC or a group
of unhappy AMD shareholders tries to nail him over other deceptions
these comments would likely be valuable in demonstrating a pattern
or habit of careless lying.

thibs · Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 119

Mmm it'd be funny to count the same for Intel management but then I suppose, Paul, you're not busy counting those?

It does not diminish any lie from AMD, of course.

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

I'm not sure why you insist on calling this such a terrible lie, when its plain obvious it was an omission (x86 should have been in there).

Anyone in the industry would know that this is not the first 600 million transistor chip. Wether it was Montecito, nvidia's G80 or even AMD's very own R600, they have all done it. Anyone with a brain knew what Ruiz meant, and maybe even said.

cornelius785 · Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

the statement still would not be true if x86 was in there, but 'amd's x86' or the like would make it true (ignoring the 600 million transistors slip).

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

hm, ok, I forgot Tulsa.

TacoBell · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 287

cornelius785 wrote:

the statement still would not be true if x86 was in there, but 'amd's x86' or the like would make it true (ignoring the 600 million transistors slip).

So in other words, there is actually no way to make it true, even including AMD x86.

cornelius785 · Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

i was thinking more along the lines of 'barcelona is amd's largest x86 processor at 400 million transistors'. i wasn't intending to make it sound like it is impossible to make it true.

i don't care that much that Ruiz slipped up. people make mistakes and there are worse ones than this one.