ATI still hurting AMD

[PingSpike]

AMD has always had problems. But their main problem was they didn't capitalize on the success they had in the s939 days. I don't care if they had a lot of debt to pay off or you wanted to pump the stock price or whatever the hell they did with the money. They needed to keep tearing intel a new one by rolling out new and better products at a fever pitch, because with Intels size they will find a way to catch up. JaBro999 said it, no one with half a brain would expect a giant awash in cash like Intel to just keep fucking up while you stole all their shit. Except for the execs at AMD apparently. When C2D rolled out they weren't just caught with their pants down, they were passed out on the toilet! And with this recession they may never recovered from that screw up.

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Arkaign
*sigh*

I always thought it was a boneheaded move to buy ATI. Not that ATI was bad or anything, just that AMD should have held their assets and focused on improving their CPUs. With a megagiant like Intel for competition, there's no room for funny business.

Cheap integrated video is what dominates 90%+ of PCs and notebooks anyways, and even the Nvidia and AMD integrated video chipsets are not a high-margin deal. Better to make a competitive cpu lineup that has an ASP of ~$200 than to dilute you resources, both at the administrative level and at the finance level.

Yep.

Back when this happened, many were proclaiming the imminent death of NVIDIA and possibly Intel even (!)- no one would be able to withstand the new super company AMD/ATi.

Turned out that what happens when you add two second place companies together with a lot of debt to finance the merger you get two second place companies crushed by debt load.

AMD should have stuck to what they do best, they had no need of ATi. Likewise, I don't know that ATi needed AMD management.

both gentlemen made valid points but to be honest looking back no one can say for sure what will turn out in the future. The purchase could very well have giving AMD an edge in total platform integration which is big in OEM sells, enterprise system sales etc. ATI does make some great chipsets. Nevertheless it looks like things hasn't turn out well for this bet so you could say they made a mistake buying ATI last year.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: ronnn
Outside of Intel, the tech industry is awash in red ink.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123205312579086969.html

Intel Corp.'s fourth-quarter profit plunged 90% and the semiconductor giant predicted even weaker conditions ahead, the latest evidence that the recession is rocking all segments of the high-tech industry.

Yea, but I'm willing to bet that both Nvidia and AMD will wish that they were just dealing with less profit vs. huge losses. I have a feeling that Nvidia is going to have the worst numbers to report this quarter. They just advised that they are looking at a 40-50% revenue drop for the 4th quarter which is typically stronger then the 3rd quarter. I guess we'll see what happens, but I don't think there are too many companies doing especially well these days.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
I think NVIDIA Focus Group Members only say that because they want Ati around for competition.

Without ATI, an 8800GT let alone a GTX285, might not even exist. We might still be fiddling with Geforce 3's.

I think you should lay off the focus group guys. Rollo did his time . Leave these guys alone. ATI and NV are going to have their hands full with Larrabee.

NV focus group guys don't need to say things they don't mean. Rollo isn't a bad guy . So he fooled ya . Big ass deal . Leave it alone. I seen how you guys acted when ya found out. Shameful! Keys Rollo and the rest don't want bad things to happen to AMD or ATI . They have a job todo . You know what that job is . So let it lie. The way I recall I was the 1 who stood up to him . It was great fun to. You remember don't ya Rollo . We had some great fun . Zinn2b / Intelia / Nemesis . and my fav. White Wolf. Rollo you rember the Alaskin story that was great. PEACE.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Arkaign
*sigh*

I always thought it was a boneheaded move to buy ATI. Not that ATI was bad or anything, just that AMD should have held their assets and focused on improving their CPUs. With a megagiant like Intel for competition, there's no room for funny business.

Cheap integrated video is what dominates 90%+ of PCs and notebooks anyways, and even the Nvidia and AMD integrated video chipsets are not a high-margin deal. Better to make a competitive cpu lineup that has an ASP of ~$200 than to dilute you resources, both at the administrative level and at the finance level.

Yep.

Back when this happened, many were proclaiming the imminent death of NVIDIA and possibly Intel even (!)- no one would be able to withstand the new super company AMD/ATi.

Turned out that what happens when you add two second place companies together with a lot of debt to finance the merger you get two second place companies crushed by debt load.

AMD should have stuck to what they do best, they had no need of ATi. Likewise, I don't know that ATi needed AMD management.

Rollo I think AMD had to buy ATI or NV one of the 2 . They paid way to much , I agree.

But when intel comes out with Larrabee Its new Ball game . ATI tech is really good considering they can do what Intel can . Where as NV arch isn't suited to do same work .

In 9 months well see once and for all Who will survive and who won't . I m a betting man . Ya want to bet? AMD isn't in as bad a shape as you all believe. Once Intel AMD have ondie GPU with CPUs well see what happens. I haven't time to google but AMD has said that Their graphics cards will work best on an AMD platiform . I don't doubt it one bit . Intel with larrabee said the same . So who does that leave out?

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: ronnn
Outside of Intel, the tech industry is awash in red ink.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123205312579086969.html

Intel Corp.'s fourth-quarter profit plunged 90% and the semiconductor giant predicted even weaker conditions ahead, the latest evidence that the recession is rocking all segments of the high-tech industry.

Profits plummeting is better than anyone else at this time.

 

[AmdInside]

I think that while AMD overpaid for ATI, overall they needed ATI or NVIDIA. Without a strong motherboard and graphics chipset, there is nothing enticing for AMD to offer OEMs. Think about it....if ATI were still making the same motherboards for Intel and AMD, why would anyone buy AMD today?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Arkaign
*sigh*

I always thought it was a boneheaded move to buy ATI. Not that ATI was bad or anything, just that AMD should have held their assets and focused on improving their CPUs. With a megagiant like Intel for competition, there's no room for funny business.

Cheap integrated video is what dominates 90%+ of PCs and notebooks anyways, and even the Nvidia and AMD integrated video chipsets are not a high-margin deal. Better to make a competitive cpu lineup that has an ASP of ~$200 than to dilute you resources, both at the administrative level and at the finance level.

Yep.

Back when this happened, many were proclaiming the imminent death of NVIDIA and possibly Intel even (!)- no one would be able to withstand the new super company AMD/ATi.

Turned out that what happens when you add two second place companies together with a lot of debt to finance the merger you get two second place companies crushed by debt load.

AMD should have stuck to what they do best, they had no need of ATi. Likewise, I don't know that ATi needed AMD management.

Rollo I think AMD had to buy ATI or NV one of the 2 . They paid way to much , I agree.

But when intel comes out with Larrabee Its new Ball game . ATI tech is really good considering they can do what Intel can . Where as NV arch isn't suited to do same work .

In 9 months well see once and for all Who will survive and who won't . I m a betting man . Ya want to bet? AMD isn't in as bad a shape as you all believe. Once Intel AMD have ondie GPU with CPUs well see what happens. I haven't time to google but AMD has said that Their graphics cards will work best on an AMD platiform . I don't doubt it one bit . Intel with larrabee said the same . So who does that leave out?

I don't buy the on-die GPU. Unless something changes DRAMATICALLY, and I mean a bigger change than has ever occurred in semiconductors, high-quality cutting-edge 3D video requires a big die, with lots of heat, needing wide/fast special memory. Putting a competitive solution on the cpu die itself would lead to massive socket sizes and tremendous concentrations of heat.

On-die GPU will not be competitive with discrete solutions for those wanting gaming performance. Meaning that it will be relegated to competing with onboard video, which is already good enough to do HD video, Microsoft Office, etc, for the 90%+ marketshare of PC buyers who don't care about gaming outside of something like Solitaire or Freecell. Thus, putting GPU features onto CPUs that will only compete with $15-$40/lot price integrated video chipsets is NOT a profitable plan.

As for a particular GPU working noticeably better on one platform or another, that's another load of crap. PCI-E, and PCI-E 2.0 are just more standards. Sure there are differences in performance between chipsets, but outside of a deliberate hobbling of the interface to hurt competitors products (would make no sense to do this), which chipset you pair with has no bearing other than how good that particular chipset is to begin with. They both say this because it's what PR people HAVE to say about their companies products. Look at what AMD said about K6-2 vs. Pentium II, or what Intel said about P4 vs. Athlon. Believing the PR guys is absolutely idiotic.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: AmdInside
I think that while AMD overpaid for ATI, overall they needed ATI or NVIDIA. Without a strong motherboard and graphics chipset, there is nothing enticing for AMD to offer OEMs. Think about it....if ATI were still making the same motherboards for Intel and AMD, why would anyone buy AMD today?

That's what making corporate deals and licensing arrangements is for, so that you don't pay billions for a company you don't need, with cash reserves that should have been stored away for hard times like these.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: AmdInside
I think that while AMD overpaid for ATI, overall they needed ATI or NVIDIA. Without a strong motherboard and graphics chipset, there is nothing enticing for AMD to offer OEMs. Think about it....if ATI were still making the same motherboards for Intel and AMD, why would anyone buy AMD today?

Agreed. I think it's becoming pretty evident that AMD paid too much for ATI though. But, AMD wants to be an all in one solution like Intel. They can sell OEM's a CPU, complete chipset, as well as discreet graphics depending on the setup. I think they felt they need to be able to sell everything with the AMD brand to survive. Also like Intel, AMD wants to sell a complete mobile solution like Intel's Centrino. If AMD survives and can start making money, I still believe the ATI deal will be good for them in the long run... that's assuming that they can survive of course.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Arkaign
*sigh*

I always thought it was a boneheaded move to buy ATI. Not that ATI was bad or anything, just that AMD should have held their assets and focused on improving their CPUs. With a megagiant like Intel for competition, there's no room for funny business.

Cheap integrated video is what dominates 90%+ of PCs and notebooks anyways, and even the Nvidia and AMD integrated video chipsets are not a high-margin deal. Better to make a competitive cpu lineup that has an ASP of ~$200 than to dilute you resources, both at the administrative level and at the finance level.

Yep.

Back when this happened, many were proclaiming the imminent death of NVIDIA and possibly Intel even (!)- no one would be able to withstand the new super company AMD/ATi.

Turned out that what happens when you add two second place companies together with a lot of debt to finance the merger you get two second place companies crushed by debt load.

AMD should have stuck to what they do best, they had no need of ATi. Likewise, I don't know that ATi needed AMD management.

Rollo I think AMD had to buy ATI or NV one of the 2 . They paid way to much , I agree.

But when intel comes out with Larrabee Its new Ball game . ATI tech is really good considering they can do what Intel can . Where as NV arch isn't suited to do same work .

In 9 months well see once and for all Who will survive and who won't . I m a betting man . Ya want to bet? AMD isn't in as bad a shape as you all believe. Once Intel AMD have ondie GPU with CPUs well see what happens. I haven't time to google but AMD has said that Their graphics cards will work best on an AMD platiform . I don't doubt it one bit . Intel with larrabee said the same . So who does that leave out?

I don't buy the on-die GPU. Unless something changes DRAMATICALLY, and I mean a bigger change than has ever occurred in semiconductors, high-quality cutting-edge 3D video requires a big die, with lots of heat, needing wide/fast special memory. Putting a competitive solution on the cpu die itself would lead to massive socket sizes and tremendous concentrations of heat.

On-die GPU will not be competitive with discrete solutions for those wanting gaming performance. Meaning that it will be relegated to competing with onboard video, which is already good enough to do HD video, Microsoft Office, etc, for the 90%+ marketshare of PC buyers who don't care about gaming outside of something like Solitaire or Freecell. Thus, putting GPU features onto CPUs that will only compete with $15-$40/lot price integrated video chipsets is NOT a profitable plan.

As for a particular GPU working noticeably better on one platform or another, that's another load of crap. PCI-E, and PCI-E 2.0 are just more standards. Sure there are differences in performance between chipsets, but outside of a deliberate hobbling of the interface to hurt competitors products (would make no sense to do this), which chipset you pair with has no bearing other than how good that particular chipset is to begin with. They both say this because it's what PR people HAVE to say about their companies products. Look at what AMD said about K6-2 vs. Pentium II, or what Intel said about P4 vs. Athlon. Believing the PR guys is absolutely idiotic.

Were not saying On die gpu will be high performance. But it cuts NV out of chipset market. I keep hereing That NV has license for QPI. I sure would like to see a link from Intel saying so.

AMD AND Intel have both said That Their high end Graphics will work best on their platiforms. We well find that out first with Nehalem and Larrabee . Been a bit of talk about the Nehalem compiler and larrabee already . When Intel goes Sandy bridge with AVX you can forget about buying anything but Larrabee if you looking for high performance. AMD has said the same . With side port setting there who are we to doudt it.

 

[zebrax2]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

I don't buy the on-die GPU. Unless something changes DRAMATICALLY, and I mean a bigger change than has ever occurred in semiconductors, high-quality cutting-edge 3D video requires a big die, with lots of heat, needing wide/fast special memory. Putting a competitive solution on the cpu die itself would lead to massive socket sizes and tremendous concentrations of heat.

On-die GPU will not be competitive with discrete solutions for those wanting gaming performance. Meaning that it will be relegated to competing with onboard video, which is already good enough to do HD video, Microsoft Office, etc, for the 90%+ marketshare of PC buyers who don't care about gaming outside of something like Solitaire or Freecell. Thus, putting GPU features onto CPUs that will only compete with $15-$40/lot price integrated video chipsets is NOT a profitable plan.

Although it will not be competitive to discrete solutions i think does have its niche in the mobile(notebooks) market.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo
On the CPU side AMD has nothing comparable to high end Penrynn, let alone i7. Why would anyone buy a AMD motherboard when everyone currently has LGA775, and upgraders have no choice but 1366?

I disagree...the new Phenoms are fairly competitive (not with i7) and they're drop-in replacements in most AM2+ motherboards. They did a decent job (not spectacular) with the new CPUs and if prices are competitive they'll sell I think.

Q: How many people own an AM2 motherboard in 2009?
A: Not many.

Q:Can a company make a living marketing to "not many" when they have to pay interest on billions and their average chip price is about $200.?
A: No.

BTW- I don't think the Phenoms are terrible, there's just no reason to buy them. Buying an AMD motherboard is the same as saying "I know I will never have high end performance on this motherboard".

I like my AMD 9650 fine, but it couldn't be in my primary rig.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: nRollo
Q: How many people own an AM2 motherboard in 2009?
A: Not many.

Q:Can a company make a living marketing to "not many" when they have to pay interest on billions and their average chip price is about $200.?
A: No.

BTW- I don't think the Phenoms are terrible, there's just no reason to buy them. Buying an AMD motherboard is the same as saying "I know I will never have high end performance on this motherboard".

I wouldn't say the amount of people with AM2 boards is insignificant (do you have actual numbers for the split?). On these forums most (active folks) would probably have LGA775 motherboards but overall I think there's a decent amount...also, not everyone needs to have top-performing stuff and care more about price. At the time I was buying mine, it was the cheapest quad you could buy and came with an unlocked multiplier to boot so you didn't need a fancy board either if you wanted to OC. I game at 1920x1200 and I think I'd be hard pressed to see a huge difference between this OCed 9850 (3GHz) and something like a Q9550 so you don't actually need that extra OC headroom. For example, in this farcry 2 benchmark using a QX6850 (3GHz) the 4870 1gb gets 49.4fps (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...0-1gb-golden-sample/4 and I got 48.6fps (and that's running Windows 7 beta)...not much of a difference there.

I think the biggest complaint about the Phenoms (after theTLB bug was fixed) is the power consumption and that they didn't OC as well as the C2Qs. Since those are fixed now it's actually a competitive solution.

Also, I think the biggest impact will be in the server space where the new Opterons are a direct drop in (Opteron servers are actually fairly popular I think) and without the need for FB-dimms like with Intel.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Amd should do just fine with gamers. When we talk Graphics thats what were talking about. I am buying AMD DDR3 M/B and CPU . I have a PH1 setup. Its a good cpu. So its not a speed demon big deal. No I don't believe its in Intel league. But so what . I believe ATI /AMD are going to get very strong in graphics. I believe Intel is going to be very strong in graphics.

I believe DX11 is a game changer for ATI. I see ya mentioned stereo/physX/CUDA.

Stereo how many people have only 1 good eye. I can't see stereo . I have never seen it so I haven't a clue. But NV isn't the only player. How many games are there for stereo right now.

Physics X Ya say that like Intel /AMD are sleepimg not true. I preferr software . Well see on this one .

Cuda . Lets wait to see what larrabee does to cuda . Its bye bye cuda.

Thats my thoughts . I understand its your job to shove this down our throats and its OK . But please Rollo don't try to play us guys as fools. I let you talk befor the ATI 4000 release. Even tho I had A card. I never said anything other than . The guys would be in for a pleasant surprise. I could have started a war. But I didn't . Why? Its not worth it thats why. I could careless what John down the street has for a computer . Even tho every one in my village is on my pcs. Hell we do a lot of things were not suppose to do . So arrest me.

This really is useless till we see for ourselves. If your serious about pyhisics x than do this for us . Run some test with I7 than with a PhII than a 9400 intel and finely the PHI . Show us the results ROLLO with cpu usage. I already know Rollo . Lets see the size of your balls.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: ronnn
Outside of Intel, the tech industry is awash in red ink.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123205312579086969.html

Intel Corp.'s fourth-quarter profit plunged 90% and the semiconductor giant predicted even weaker conditions ahead, the latest evidence that the recession is rocking all segments of the high-tech industry.

Without the clear wire write down Intel made a billion. So your link is good for what exactly?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo
Q: How many people own an AM2 motherboard in 2009?
A: Not many.

Q:Can a company make a living marketing to "not many" when they have to pay interest on billions and their average chip price is about $200.?
A: No.

BTW- I don't think the Phenoms are terrible, there's just no reason to buy them. Buying an AMD motherboard is the same as saying "I know I will never have high end performance on this motherboard".

I wouldn't say the amount of people with AM2 boards is insignificant (do you have actual numbers for the split?). On these forums most (active folks) would probably have LGA775 motherboards but overall I think there's a decent amount...also, not everyone needs to have top-performing stuff and care more about price. At the time I was buying mine, it was the cheapest quad you could buy and came with an unlocked multiplier to boot so you didn't need a fancy board either if you wanted to OC. I game at 1920x1200 and I think I'd be hard pressed to see a huge difference between this OCed 9850 (3GHz) and something like a Q9550 so you don't actually need that extra OC headroom.

I think the biggest complaint about the Phenoms (after theTLB bug was fixed) is the power consumption and that they didn't OC as well as the C2Qs. Since those are fixed now it's actually a competitive solution.

AMD had 12% marketshare in Q3 2008

I think the new Phenoms will unfortunately prove too little, too late. Maybe if they would have launched with these parts, not now.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo
Q: How many people own an AM2 motherboard in 2009?
A: Not many.

Q:Can a company make a living marketing to "not many" when they have to pay interest on billions and their average chip price is about $200.?
A: No.

BTW- I don't think the Phenoms are terrible, there's just no reason to buy them. Buying an AMD motherboard is the same as saying "I know I will never have high end performance on this motherboard".

I wouldn't say the amount of people with AM2 boards is insignificant (do you have actual numbers for the split?). On these forums most (active folks) would probably have LGA775 motherboards but overall I think there's a decent amount...also, not everyone needs to have top-performing stuff and care more about price. At the time I was buying mine, it was the cheapest quad you could buy and came with an unlocked multiplier to boot so you didn't need a fancy board either if you wanted to OC. I game at 1920x1200 and I think I'd be hard pressed to see a huge difference between this OCed 9850 (3GHz) and something like a Q9550 so you don't actually need that extra OC headroom. For example, in this farcry 2 benchmark using a QX6850 (3GHz) the 4870 1gb gets 49.4fps (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...0-1gb-golden-sample/4 and I got 48.6fps (and that's running Windows 7 beta)...not much of a difference there.

I think the biggest complaint about the Phenoms (after theTLB bug was fixed) is the power consumption and that they didn't OC as well as the C2Qs. Since those are fixed now it's actually a competitive solution.

Also, I think the biggest impact will be in the server space where the new Opterons are a direct drop in (Opteron servers are actually fairly popular I think) and without the need for FB-dimms like with Intel.

Oh NO! AMD is bout to be booted from the server arenea. Its going to happen in record time also . With everyone cutting back and looking for cost cutting . Server intel is about to BOOM. Nehalem is that good.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: zebrax2

Originally posted by: Arkaign

I don't buy the on-die GPU. Unless something changes DRAMATICALLY, and I mean a bigger change than has ever occurred in semiconductors, high-quality cutting-edge 3D video requires a big die, with lots of heat, needing wide/fast special memory. Putting a competitive solution on the cpu die itself would lead to massive socket sizes and tremendous concentrations of heat.

On-die GPU will not be competitive with discrete solutions for those wanting gaming performance. Meaning that it will be relegated to competing with onboard video, which is already good enough to do HD video, Microsoft Office, etc, for the 90%+ marketshare of PC buyers who don't care about gaming outside of something like Solitaire or Freecell. Thus, putting GPU features onto CPUs that will only compete with $15-$40/lot price integrated video chipsets is NOT a profitable plan.

Although it will not be competitive to discrete solutions i think does have its niche in the mobile(notebooks) market.

So business need high end graphics. Not likely. None gamers need high end graphics? For what?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I already know Rollo . Lets see the size of your balls.

Errrr.....no thank you.........

 

[Pelu]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I honestly believe the AMD/ATI merger will prove to be a good move in the long term... if they survive that long.

I disagree. I doubt they will ever recoup the $5.4 billion they spent plus the 7 losing quarters.

That would be the business coup of all time if it actually happened. As it is, if the economy doesn't bounce back quickly, AMD/ATi is dead, and will be chopped up and sold off to pay down the debts.

Which will suck, but you're likely right.

On the graphics front, NVIDIA will keep after ATi because even people not necessarily using stereo/physX/CUDA likely won't want to make sure they never can by purchasing ATi except at bargain prices. (not to mention every game they launch tells them "Buy NVIDIA")

On the CPU side AMD has nothing comparable to high end Penrynn, let alone i7. Why would anyone buy a AMD motherboard when everyone currently has LGA775, and upgraders have no choice but 1366?

On the chipset side, people will keep not buying AMD chipsets because there are no competitive AMD CPUs, and they can get CF (if they want it) on Intel boards and not hamstring themselves.

About all AMD has going on now is the 4800 series are really good cards, but even with that they've been forced to low margin sale prices by other factors.

Bleh.

It's got to be really really depressing at AMD/ATi now, considering another tenth of the people you know as an employee there just got dumped, and if you're still there you got a big pay cut if you're management or engineering.

THAT will have huge fallout too.

If you're an engineer and making $150,000 a year and your manager tells you "Guess what? Now you make $135,000!" your first move is to send your resume' to every company that might hire you. You likely just lost your discretionary income or what you're investing- either way you walk and walk fast in a climate like that.

The guys who don't end up reading "Who moved the Cheese" while trying to figure out how to live on $2K month unemployment vs $10K a month income.

It's just bad news anyway you cut it.

Stop taking a drag .. ok...

 

[Pelu]

Originally posted by: ronnn
Amd will go bankrupt, as the economy will get worse and may never return to same type of consumer toy driven model. Nvidia will last a bit longer, but awaits the same fate. Outside of Intel, the tech industry is awash in red ink.

true...

 

[Pelu]

by the way did you notice the quality of products in general is going down... in cpu and gpus.. and also the entertainment of games too...

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Without the clear wire write down Intel made a billion. So your link is good for what exactly?

Ah yes. in your world dropping profit by 90% is a good thing. If you read my link...which clearly you did not. Intel said more of the same bad news is coming. '

Thanks for playing, but you fail.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I already know Rollo . Lets see the size of your balls.

Errrr.....no thank you.........

Not bad buddy . you get an A+ But you skipped my challenge. Ya know what Rollo its tiring only hearing half trueths. Try the whole trueth . You be surprized at the results. You sometimes act like were children . We all understand the + - of all tech. Thats what we exspect from our nv rep. Don't worry about the - its a trade off. We understand that Rollo. So tell the whole story . It will only help you. It can't ever hurt YOU in any way ever. You only gain.

This here right here . You have always done THIS [L=Errrr.....no thank you.........]

You new what I meant about seeing the size of your balls. So does everone else. Don't try to turn it in to something nasty. That to get tiring. If you don't want to comply to my request. Just tell me to go to hell. I can respect that. You know exactly what I mean .

I think AMD is going to struggle for along while . I am not sure they will make it . But I am still going to thro more money at their stock even if it goes against logic. Hell I am all ready in for 20g whats a few more. I will chase it all the way down. Why not. I made way more off the shorts than I exspected so whats the harm?

Rollo you have the inside track I shorted NV at $32. Would now be the time to get out. Or should I wait till its a $1 a share?