Bulldozer
- Thread starter StrangleHold
- Start date
BurningSkyline
New Member
Well, I hope ASAP. I've been putting off a build for a while now.
Same here! going on 5 months now..... getting impatient!
linkin
VIP Member
Imagine AMD shareholders lol
Probably a good time to buy AMD shares.
Been longer then that. They started talking Bulldozer back after the first Phenom release. It was suppost to come out instead of the Phenom II. But decided at 45nm. the die would just be to big. So they delayed the release to be on 32nm.
All I have heard is, its still on for the 12th. But who really knows, because that date was not even officially said from AMD.
spynoodle
Active Member
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
That's what I've been thinking. If benches are good, then I'm buying.
Given the 5 year historic chart, and the fact that one chip wont necessarily change that, and the fact that the buy in price is 3,000 shares at $5.19 ($15,570) you are better off putting your money in the bank.
Well there is two stories to that. True since when the core 2 was released in 2006 AMD has dropped in market share and stock price. If Zambezi is released with in the next few weeks, its took AMD 5 years to be atlease competitive.
But the other side is between 2000 and 2006 AMD has Intel beat clock for clock. The very same thing would have had happend to Intels market share and stock price if Intel didnt use unfair and in some instances unlawful business practices to keep it from falling through the floor.
So you can look at Intel from two perspectives.
1. Intel was a good company that did it for the sake of their company.
2. At the same time spent billions of dollars in pay offs to OEMs to keep market share resulting in a fools game selling inferior products to customers instead of spending it on research to release a better product.
It took Intel with a research and development budget that is higher then AMD total income 6 years to beat AMD clock for clock. AMD has been, what 5 years now working on a new processor that should be out in a few weeks that will atleast make them competitive again.
Either way you look at it, Intel pretty much sucks as a company and is willing to screw you over as a customer without people even realizing it. Dont get me wrong, I am not a AMD fanboy. There are only two dogs in town, and one is willing to bite your kid in the face over its dog food bowl. So I pick the other.
But the other side is between 2000 and 2006 AMD has Intel beat clock for clock. The very same thing would have had happend to Intels market share and stock price if Intel didnt use unfair and in some instances unlawful business practices to keep it from falling through the floor.
So you can look at Intel from two perspectives.
1. Intel was a good company that did it for the sake of their company.
2. At the same time spent billions of dollars in pay offs to OEMs to keep market share resulting in a fools game selling inferior products to customers instead of spending it on research to release a better product.
It took Intel with a research and development budget that is higher then AMD total income 6 years to beat AMD clock for clock. AMD has been, what 5 years now working on a new processor that should be out in a few weeks that will atleast make them competitive again.
Either way you look at it, Intel pretty much sucks as a company and is willing to screw you over as a customer without people even realizing it. Dont get me wrong, I am not a AMD fanboy. There are only two dogs in town, and one is willing to bite your kid in the face over its dog food bowl. So I pick the other.
Last edited:
Yeah, Intel screwed over customers for years selling a inferior processor by spending billions of dollars buying off and installing fear in OEMs not to use AMD processors.
Last edited:
eMachines started out selling cheaper versions with the same spec. of larger companies like HP/Compaq. At first they were seen as the lower quality of the computer venders. As time went on they started selling higher quality PC even at a smaller price point. Think at a point before being bought out they had the lowest repair issues then even all the major brands.
Gateway about at the same time went in the complete opposite direction. Was selling fairly good quality computers at the same price point as the major OEMs. For some reason thinking painting the boxes that looked like a cow would impress someone. They strarted losing market share and decided to make cheaper computer but not lowering the price. Which even made them lose more sells.
I guess Gateway decided buying eMachine was a way out of going under and using eMachine strategy of selling computers. Even though Gateway bought eMachine, eMachine CEO ran the whole company. Well it didnt work out.
So in the end Gateway along with eMachine was bought out by Acer. Even if people dont like Acer (which I never have had a problem with them) they have alot better business model then Gateway ever though of. I think if Acer just completely dropped off the Gateway brand and combined the business models of eMachine and Acer together it would have been a better pay off.
It was HP that bought out Compaq.
Gateway about at the same time went in the complete opposite direction. Was selling fairly good quality computers at the same price point as the major OEMs. For some reason thinking painting the boxes that looked like a cow would impress someone. They strarted losing market share and decided to make cheaper computer but not lowering the price. Which even made them lose more sells.
I guess Gateway decided buying eMachine was a way out of going under and using eMachine strategy of selling computers. Even though Gateway bought eMachine, eMachine CEO ran the whole company. Well it didnt work out.
So in the end Gateway along with eMachine was bought out by Acer. Even if people dont like Acer (which I never have had a problem with them) they have alot better business model then Gateway ever though of. I think if Acer just completely dropped off the Gateway brand and combined the business models of eMachine and Acer together it would have been a better pay off.
It was HP that bought out Compaq.
Last edited:
Dell was a big player in the post 52 above. Dell had to pay a 100 million fine and Michael Dell plus some other top Dell top brass had fines too (up to 4 millon each) because they took big under the table pay offs from Intel not to use AMD processors. Intel from 2003 through 2007 paid Dell 4.3 billion not to use AMD processors.
In the middle of all this Dell was in talks with AMD to buy out AMD. That way they could have completely cut off Intel and have there own processor plus get out of a Intel representative being in the office every few days threatening them with some kind of retaliation in one way or another if they used AMD processors. But Dell was already under pressure because of really low profit margin and decided to not deal with it and take Intels pay off money.
And they were not the only company Intel was doing this to. This is some of the reasons I dont like Intel.
In the middle of all this Dell was in talks with AMD to buy out AMD. That way they could have completely cut off Intel and have there own processor plus get out of a Intel representative being in the office every few days threatening them with some kind of retaliation in one way or another if they used AMD processors. But Dell was already under pressure because of really low profit margin and decided to not deal with it and take Intels pay off money.
And they were not the only company Intel was doing this to. This is some of the reasons I dont like Intel.
Last edited: