AMD's Abu Dhabi Deal - From Bad to Worse

Since it doesn't seem anybody else has started a thread on this yet...

From http://www.overclockers.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4297:abu-dhabi-gets-a-better-deal

Quote:
Essentially, the A.D.ers saved themselves about $200 million and got more Foundry Company for the rest of their money. Guess AMD had no choice but to accept the new conditions. This ought to tell you who the boss is in this new arrangement.


If this "done deal" keeps getting any better for AMD, they may fulfill Sharkook's prediction to "BK by 2Q09"...
118 answers Last reply
More about dhabi deal worse
  1. wow that kind of sucks. as bad as they need money i think this deal has potential to really minimize the control they have over Foundry Company. i wish there was a group of investors just to keep one entity from having them by the short hairs.
  2. Just reading about this on Rueters. I was going to start a thread, but since you have.....

    When I came home today, I was fully expecting to see the dow down about 200 based on last fridays unemployment report, with Intel losing around 60 cents and AMD gaining 20 cents based on the estimate of a 5000~6000 head layoff at Intel.

    Man.....did I sblow that one out my behind......almost 180' out.

    The Dow is up almost $300, Intel up 65 cents and AMD down 3 cents.

    I have no guestimation for this.....the only thing I can figure is the unfavorable rehash of the Abu deal impacted AMD/Intel

    In terms of stock, Mubadala will no longer pay a fixed price for the 58 million shares of AMD, instead paying the lower of the average closing price for the period from 23 Nov to 12 Dec, or the period 20 days prior to execution of the deal....the date of which was not mentioned.

    And, instead of the original 30 million warrents, the Abus are now getting 35million warrents.

    This is the ugly part, if the mediatards got it right (which is asking a lot of a group of people whose sole purpose in life is to sell advertisning space).....AMD will now only retain 34.2% stake in the deal instead of the original deals 44.4% Unfortunately, the Abus are still only shelling out the original $2.1billion.

    As Darth would say....."pray I do not alter it further"
  3. roofus said:
    wow that kind of sucks. as bad as they need money i think this deal has potential to really minimize the control they have over Foundry Company. i wish there was a group of investors just to keep one entity from having them by the short hairs.



    Well, Maybe its time to start the internet "Save AMD stock buyout drive"....Im serious. I wonder how much capitol could be raised out of the US forums? Enough to take 51%? Hmmm.....a 51% stake could get rid of Hector and possibly clip the lines on his golden parachute, cut the PR idots, and re direct the money theyve been wasting their back into AMDs R&D.....let the product speak for itself. Might as well, it always does in the end. With the stocks so low....a ,ow entry mass collective buyout might.....just might be feasible.


    I really wonder. Right now their market cap is $1.277 Billion. @ $2,.10 a share, thats 584 million shares outstanding.....nah...too much $614-ish million to but a 51%+ stake. Damn! Even is the stock hit $1.00 flat, still to much to raise. Ah well.....it was a thought.
  4. interesting idea though. with their stocks as low as they are, it crossed my mind to buy up some and see what happens. if they fall to a dollar i will buy a thousand shares and sit on them for a while lol
  5. I still cant help wondering if enough response could be generated.....I know for that kind of cash its not even remotley realistic.....but I still wonder.
  6. you know this is a fairly big deal depending on it's merit. i am surprised it is being avoided the way it is.
  7. I've got enough in my pocket for three shares. Where doe I send the money?
  8. *shrugs* sign up for an etrade account!
  9. They want a 5 spot for trade. Don't wanna lose 2 shares right out of the gate!
  10. hehe yea i see your point there.
  11. roofus said:
    you know this is a fairly big deal depending on it's merit. i am surprised it is being avoided the way it is.



    Well, the only good thing out of this is that AMD is protected. I have little doubt that were AMD not protected by the anti trust regulations, Intel would probably snap them up for the $1.2Billion Capex. On the other hand, with the licensing agreement, were any other company to buy them out right, they would lose the x86 licence.
  12. turpit said:
    Just reading about this on Rueters. I was going to start a thread, but since you have.....

    When I came home today, I was fully expecting to see the dow down about 200 based on last fridays unemployment report, with Intel losing around 60 cents and AMD gaining 20 cents based on the estimate of a 5000~6000 head layoff at Intel.

    Man.....did I sblow that one out my behind......almost 180' out.

    The Dow is up almost $300, Intel up 65 cents and AMD down 3 cents.

    I have no guestimation for this.....the only thing I can figure is the unfavorable rehash of the Abu deal impacted AMD/Intel


    And the fact that the analyst who made the layoff estimate had no real sources and was just floating it to see if it would stick.
  13. turpit said:
    Well, the only good thing out of this is that AMD is protected. I have little doubt that were AMD not protected by the anti trust regulations, Intel would probably snap them up for the $1.2Billion Capex. On the other hand, with the licensing agreement, were any other company to buy them out right, they would lose the x86 licence.


    I have a question regarding the x86 license agreement. From what I understand the actual details of the agreement are confidential and the only copies of it ever released (as evidence in lawsuits) were heavily redacted. Does anyone actually know that the license is non-transferable in the event of a sale or is this merely speculation?
  14. Just_An_Engineer said:
    I have a question regarding the x86 license agreement. From what I understand the actual details of the agreement are confidential and the only copies of it ever released (as evidence in lawsuits) were heavily redacted. Does anyone actually know that the license is non-transferable in the event of a sale or is this merely speculation?


    I guess you can call it speculation, since there is no "recent" copy of the license agreement floating around, to see the terms of the agreement. But based on the copy that has been used, I cannot a reason why Intel would remove that section or requirement.

    Again, all speculation, unless the newest license agreement is made public.

    redacted copy
  15. please not another bunch of spam threads about the same topic :/
  16. What concerns me is that if Abu Dhabi has the power to alter the deal like this, what if they wan t to cancel outright? AMD is depending on the cash infusion to stay afloat in this recession. And while I might buy several hundred shares if I start seeing some positive AMD news (i.e., 3rd party benchies showing Deneb being competitive and priced to earn a profit), I don't think that'll make any difference to AMD.

    As Ed pointed out, the UAE is in the driver's seat and AMD merely along for the ride. This would not give me any warm fuzzies as a stockholder...

    I agree about Ruiz - we could play "coulda shoulda woulda" all day long but the fact is, he sold AMD's soul for the holy grail of marketshare. And if he had waited a year or so, he could have bought ATI for about half of what he paid.

    After making some noise about the Abu Dhabi deal, Intel seems to have gone silent on it - I wonder if there is some negotiating going on about the antitrust suit?
  17. I hear Intels ditching HKMG, after being exposed as worthless j/k

    Yea, tough break, but why pay for something that was worth more at first, when later its been devalued? Makes sense to me
  18. Just_An_Engineer said:
    Does anyone actually know that the license is non-transferable in the event of a sale or is this merely speculation?
    To license x86 without a Change of Control clause in the agreement would amount to Intel flushing control of their IP. Omitting this control from the agreement would be complete idiocy.
  19. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    I hear Intels ditching HKMG, after being exposed as worthless j/k


    What's with you and HKMG? Yes I got the "joke" bit but seriously HKMG seems to crop up in quite a few of your posts. I think you may suffer from HKMG envy :). Besides, even AMD is going to use it next generation, right?

    Quote:
    Yea, tough break, but why pay for something that was worth more at first, when later its been devalued? Makes sense to me


    Me too. Unfortunately, that trend may continue in which case the Abu Dhabi bailout won't salvage AMD's business model and they will be scrambling for more alternatives. My understanding is that the $700M promised to AMD is unchanged, for the moment, anyway. Assuming that the deal gets approved, if AMD posts another $400M loss this quarter (see the AMD revises revenue forecast downwards by 25% thread), there goes over half of that amount.
  20. Thing is, the 4xxx series monies will kick in this qtr, plus their spending is down, and the layoffs etc. I really do hope people are smart enough to understand what this would do to Intel, and cpus in general if this happens
  21. ^ I don't think the 4xxx monies are going to make much of a dent in the debt AMD incurred in buying ATI, let alone float their CPU business.

    AMD did not foresee this recession nor did they prepare for it as well as Intel has. The overall market is trending to cheaper netbooks it seems, as consumers are cutting spending, so Intel's Atom is well-positioned to take advantage of this. Where is Bobcat when AMD needs him?? Answer: canceled because with the ATI purchase, AMD simply cannot afford to pursue Intel on all fronts. Therefore they have to look in their crystal ball and predict the market a year or so down the road; if their prediction sucks then they will suffer.

    Yes the recession will hurt Intel - they will simply make less money than otherwise. However they will still be around afterwards. Can you make the same statement about AMD?
  22. Just_An_Engineer said:
    I have a question regarding the x86 license agreement. From what I understand the actual details of the agreement are confidential and the only copies of it ever released (as evidence in lawsuits) were heavily redacted. Does anyone actually know that the license is non-transferable in the event of a sale or is this merely speculation?



    Well, this is one of the last bits I saw regarding the licence from Intel. IMO, this is thin proof of the x86 licenec, so take it for what its worth.....it was the first one that poped to mind as it was the last time I remembered seeing anything about it....call it inverse law of primacy


    Intel watches as rival AMD plans transformation

    Quote:
    We've got questions about the transaction as it relates to the license between us and AMD," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said Tuesday. "We as a company have an obligation to our shareholders to protect our intellectual property."

    It's "premature," Mulloy said, to speculate about what action Intel might take to secure that intellectual property. AMD told journalists Tuesday that it believes its plans comply with its licensing deals.


    So, while this is not by any means an actual copy of the license, we do have an Intel representative referencing "the license between us and AMD" which would seem to indicate that there is some form of x86 licence as I doubt they have anything regarding IGPs, GPUs or chipsets...maybe after the purchase of ATI...I dunno.


    But we do also have an AMD response, hereAMD Says Manufacturing Deal Does Not Violate Intel Processor Patents

    Quote:
    The day after AMD announced a significant deal that will spin off its manufacturing facilities into a new joint venture company, AMD is defending its licensing agreement with Intel. In the wake of the deal, Intel said it would review its processor licensing agreement with AMD to ensure the deal does not violate any patent agreements. An AMD spokesman said the deal does not impact the chip licensing agreement with Intel.


    AMDs defense does seem to lend a little more credence to the X86 license limitations....at least that they exist, and that Intel beleives they may be restrictive to at least comment about it.

    Take it for what its worth.....sorry its not more
  23. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    I hear Intels ditching HKMG, after being exposed as worthless j/k

    Yea, tough break, but why pay for something that was worth more at first, when later its been devalued? Makes sense to me



    LMAO....nice try Jay. I get your point, but these posts have links, yours doesnt. So your point is somewhat....pointless?
  24. AMD just selling a 3Ghz 45nm cpu is proof enough, you can find plenty of links to buy one if you want to
  25. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    AMD just selling a 3Ghz 45nm cpu is proof enough, you can find plenty of links to buy one if you want to


    Wow, but didn't intel sell a 3.2+ GHz *90*nm cpu? How did they ever do that without HKMG?


    My point is that looking at speed alone is not what you should be looking at. Take a look at the transistor metrics -- particularly at 45nm -- *thats* going to tell you all you need to know about whether HKMG was *worth it* or not, process wise.
  26. THE point is exactly 45nm process. At that size, wall thickness, gate thickness etc, it was said to hold great improvements, and at 45 nm thered be too much leakage, and eventual damage at 45nm. The only so called excepted ideal would then be a slower solution to keep away from EM ar 45nm
  27. Granted, while it may have shown improvements in the Intel solutions, it may not be so prominent in AMDs solutions, at least at 45nm. Maybe it was too soon to go HKMG, as the vcores do have to be lower at 45 using HKMG, and upping the vcore doesnt help beyond a certain point, which may be a hindrance using HKMG overall, and as weve seen the "leaks" of P2 using 1.968 vcore at 6.3133 GHz http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210292&page=3, it goes along with this so far. Time will tell if Intel shot itself in the foot by incorporating HKMG too soon, or that Intels silicon is inferior at these nodes, and requires a more expensive solution at these speeds
  28. i wouldnt call that a leak. thats part of their advertising gimmick. they sure put themselves in a bad position if their gimmick cannot be reproduced in the wild.
  29. Exactly. Maybe theyre threatening Intel with going under? That must be it. AMD comes out , makes all these claims which cant be reproduced, and itll surely go under, whichll worry Intel no end, as they dont want to be a monopoly
  30. Oh AMD being absent from the game would be a major cause of concern for Intel and you understand that just as I do. Being the lone player in the game is a guarantee of an onslaught of litigation and demonizing. AMD will be around. It is naive to think otherwise.
    I do however believe that if their gimmick isnt able to be replicated in retail versions they will do alot of damage to themselves, far worse than any competitor could do. Even you personally jaydee..How does your perception change if it is all crap? Not saying it is but we really don't know for certain.
  31. roofus said:
    AMD will be around. It is naive to think otherwise.
    Nonsense. AMD can fail just like any other business. What the market needs is an Intel competitor. It could be AMD, and I’d prefer it be AMD, but it doesn’t have to be AMD. Even in the current bail-out happy climate, I don’t think AMD can expect any kind of a lifeline, or at least not a very favorable one (case in point – the thread’s topic).

    Speculation: If AMD falls, Intel, out of antitrust concerns, will choose to or be compelled to license their IP to soeone else. But that could take some time to play out, and it will be a mess for all involved in the interim.
  32. I would go as far as to say Intel would be a party to keep them from failing.
  33. "It needs a competitor". Thats all that needs be said. Hey Im all for the little guy, but if AMD goes under, itll only make it harder for Intel either way, as the new competition will have better backing , or for those who believe in monopolies, the governments come in and split Intel in pieces.

    If AMD is full of it, then they dont deserve my money, as simple as that. nVidias done a few questionable things, as has Intel too, but it al comes down to how good the product is. If its ne wheres near what theyre claiming, forget it, or if the IPC isnt there, forget it. Im guessing enough of both here, no reason to think any other way, as P1 is going to 3.4 now, another 600Mhz isnt hard to see, and now it all comes down to IPC
  34. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    THE point is exactly 45nm process. At that size, wall thickness, gate thickness etc, it was said to hold great improvements, and at 45 nm thered be too much leakage, and eventual damage at 45nm. The only so called excepted ideal would then be a slower solution to keep away from EM ar 45nm


    So Intel could hit 3.8GHz on 65nm (Pentium D Ceader Mill series) but it takes AMD 45nm to get to 3Ghz stock?

    Not really that much of an improvement.

    What I am woundering is that if they can OC these chips so damn well then why in the hell are they not even releasing something higher than 3GHz stock? They could make more money on it. Unless there is something else they wont tell us yet......

    As for the OP, well in these economic times and until things get better or at least AMD hits their bottom (was supposed to be $5 dollars a few months ago, right?) its not a good venture. At first it may have seemed like a good venture that could make them money but there is too much going on that could either delay the deal or make it a worthless venture, much like that $700 million investment that is now worth very little.
  35. Its times like these where fortunes are made. This actually could go in AMDs favor, but who knows? A lot of planning and a little luck goes a long ways in times like these. AMD could emrge as something totally different after this, and be stronger than ever . Its a survival situation for them no doubt, but in a way, it is for Intel as well. No one can predict whatll happen in the future, and being larger may prove to be a much larger detritent itself. Theres just too many possibilities at this point
  36. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Exactly. Maybe theyre threatening Intel with going under? That must be it. AMD comes out , makes all these claims which cant be reproduced, and itll surely go under, whichll worry Intel no end, as they dont want to be a monopoly


    Hey, maybe youre onto something there Jay.

    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Its times like these where fortunes are made. This actually could go in AMDs favor, but who knows? A lot of planning and a little luck goes a long ways in times like these. AMD could emrge as something totally different after this, and be stronger than ever . Its a survival situation for them no doubt, but in a way, it is for Intel as well. No one can predict whatll happen in the future, and being larger may prove to be a much larger detritent itself. Theres just too many possibilities at this point


    Jay, I know your optimistic, and I know you thnik the Fed running the mints into the ground will solve the problem, but times are grim for everyone, and their are a fair amount of analysts who are looking for this situation to continue through 2009, with the dow possibly dropping as low as 4000. Ive seen what you written about analysts, and you know what? The beauty of analysts is that there will always be at least 2 on opposite sides, and one will be able to say "look at me, I was right, I get to double my prices now". But about the only people Iveseen being optimistic right now are some (some mind you) of the democrats. I think AMD is safe from hostile takeover for a couple of reasons....discussed it in another thread. But I dont think CH11 is out of the question.....not in this economy....regardless of what Intel, DOJ or anyone else wants. Not saying its a given, but I dont think the folks ruling the possibility out are being realistic.
  37. Oh, Im not saying thats also not a probability, it may even be a higher one. Guess what tho? Maybe the goverments giving will lead to taking as usual too? And the strong ones will have to make their contributions as well, maybe not now, as its too fragile, but dont be surprised down the raod if this happens. Gotta love government. All you need to do is vote yourself a raise, all you gotta do is vote to fix a problem, at the expense of people and companies alike. Im thinking once things settle down, and common Joe is steadied, the big strong companies are going to get hit hard by taxation
  38. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Oh, Im not saying thats also not a probability, it may even be a higher one. Guess what tho? Maybe the goverments giving will lead to taking as usual too? And the strong ones will have to make their contributions as well, maybe not now, as its too fragile, but dont be surprised down the raod if this happens. Gotta love government. All you need to do is vote yourself a raise, all you gotta do is vote to fix a problem, at the expense of people and companies alike. Im thinking once things settle down, and common Joe is steadied, the big strong companies are going to get hit hard by taxation



    You do know congress doesnt vote itself raises, right?

    Congress has an automatic cost of living raise programed into the budget....every year. They have to vote to not take the raise. So, by 'missing' the vote, (as they so often do with so many other votes), they get a raise.


    Congressional Raises & Minimum Wage

    Quote:
    Because Congress got bad press every time they voted to give themselves a rest in the 1980’s, in 1989, they changed the rules to make the raise automatic as long as they did not vote to block it. Democrat Representative Jim Matheson from Utah did attempt to get a direct vote to block the increase but this was voted down by those same lawmakers who don’t want to give a cost of living increase to those who do earn minimum wage and struggle every day to make ends meet and pay their bills.
  39. They didnt change the rules, thats more guv spin, they wrote it, they loved it, and they voted on it heheh

    Raising taxes on companies such as Intel is in their interests, as itll help slow them down, and helps the slower,smaller companies compete, al the while, they get more money. If I want the grass cut, I have to do it myself, while government just creates an agency, raises taxes, and then votes to have it done, and again, all the while, they gain power for the new agencies, and have increased their "households" worth, all at the same time, and they take all the credit for "fixing the problem", and get peoples votes. Nice setup
  40. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Granted, while it may have shown improvements in the Intel solutions, it may not be so prominent in AMDs solutions, at least at 45nm. Maybe it was too soon to go HKMG, as the vcores do have to be lower at 45 using HKMG, and upping the vcore doesnt help beyond a certain point, which may be a hindrance using HKMG overall, and as weve seen the "leaks" of P2 using 1.968 vcore at 6.3133 GHz http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210292&page=3, it goes along with this so far. Time will tell if Intel shot itself in the foot by incorporating HKMG too soon, or that Intels silicon is inferior at these nodes, and requires a more expensive solution at these speeds


    On the other hand maybe AMD can't yet do HKMG, despite their saying so:

    "Intel to extend high-k lead at IEDM"
    http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1XDSAKVN3DSAKQSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=212300580

    Key highlights:
    - 32nm will use a 2nd gen high K solution, along with immersion lithography
    - Despite an endless parade of claims made by vendors, high-k/metal-gate technology is much harder to develop than previously thought. IBM's ''fab club'' is reportedly wrestling with the technology, while the foundries will not deploy the scheme until the 32- or 28-nm nodes.

    Although I don't have a linky, I believe AMD has said that they could do HKMG at 45nm if they had to, and it would definitely be needed at 32nm. So, I'm thinking Intel will have a learning curve for immersion but a huge lead in HKMG, which is probably the more difficult fab technology to master.
  41. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    They didnt change the rules, thats more guv spin, they wrote it, they loved it, and they voted on it heheh

    Raising taxes on companies such as Intel is in their interests, as itll help slow them down, and helps the slower,smaller companies compete, al the while, they get more money. If I want the grass cut, I have to do it myself, while government just creates an agency, raises taxes, and then votes to have it done, and again, all the while, they gain power for the new agencies, and have increased their "households" worth, all at the same time, and they take all the credit for "fixing the problem", and get peoples votes. Nice setup


    This should concern you greatly. Unlike perception of AMD being the little guy, they are seen as another corporation. A corporation that may not manage itself real well but still its worth exceeds a billion dollars. Taxation is based on gross, not net so lets hope your wrong. They aren't the mom and pop shop not breaking 225k a year. They are number 2 CPU manufacturer.
  42. And yet another Negative from Analysis

    Quote from Marketwatch Dtd 12/11/08:
    AMD corporate family rating to B3 from B2 following the company's announcement that its fourth-quarter results will be significantly weaker than expected. Moody's also said Advanced Micro Devices' revenue will remain depressed through 2009 and its profitability and cash flow will remain negative which are expected to pressure the company's liquidity. The outlook is negative.

    End Quote:
  43. fazers_on_stun said:
    I'm thinking Intel will have a learning curve for immersion
    That's what the development fabs are for. Based on this announcement, you can bet they have already climbed that learning curve and have a mature process ready to be deployed to the other fabs.

    * Not speaking for Intel Corp *
  44. RetiredChief said:
    And yet another Negative from Analysis

    Quote from Marketwatch Dtd 12/11/08:
    AMD corporate family rating to B3 from B2 following the company's announcement that its fourth-quarter results will be significantly weaker than expected. Moody's also said Advanced Micro Devices' revenue will remain depressed through 2009 and its profitability and cash flow will remain negative which are expected to pressure the company's liquidity. The outlook is negative.

    End Quote:


    Surprisingly, AMD's stock is unchanged on the news. I'm beginning to think as somebody stated elsewhere, that AMD's stock is being moved or manipulated by the fund investors, based on something that is unobvious, at least to me :). I sure wouldn't be betting against Intel in this market..
  45. sonoran said:
    That's what the development fabs are for. Based on this announcement, you can bet they have already climbed that learning curve and have a mature process ready to be deployed to the other fabs.

    * Not speaking for Intel Corp *


    IIRC that's Intel's "copy exact" technique, right? Perfect the process in the design fab and then copy it exactly to the other fabs. I guess if AMD had more than one operating fab right now, they would implement the same thing, or try to.
  46. RetiredChief said:
    And yet another Negative from Analysis

    Quote from Marketwatch Dtd 12/11/08:
    AMD corporate family rating to B3 from B2 following the company's announcement that its fourth-quarter results will be significantly weaker than expected. Moody's also said Advanced Micro Devices' revenue will remain depressed through 2009 and its profitability and cash flow will remain negative which are expected to pressure the company's liquidity. The outlook is negative.

    End Quote:


    You beat me to it. Intels on the other hand was upgraded today. Wathcing the marlket and the analysts reports the past 10~14 days. and the dow closing with down almost 200 points but AMD holding its share pirce with Intel loosing 26 cents...makes you wonder if the profit takers arent buying AMD on good Intel news, expecting to get a bargain, and actually forcing the price up (relative) to Intels trades for the day.
  47. turpit:
    Did you happen to notice the Volume vs average volume per day. Unless volume is higher than avg volume (also compared to index avg volume), I tend to disrequard. Also with sub $5.00 stocks Larger "block" trades are cheaper and more freq.

    Took a look at the 5 day/ 1 month values. They are APPROX values.
    5 Day Amd 2.30 -> 2.20 Down 5% Intel 13.8 -> 14.28 Up 3.5%
    1 Month: Amd 2.70 - 2.20 Down 18% - Intel 13.75 - 14.28 Up 3.8%

    For ref: The QQQQ is 5 day Down about 1.5% and for 1 Month is about flat 0.0%
  48. Hey Chief

    Yeah, but Ive been playing a new game for the past few weeks. I dont know if you saw the analyst study (I saw it on CNNmoney) linking AMDs stock price to Intel news.\ shortly after Intels Q4 revision

    It seemed a plausible enough relation given they are the 'big 2' in CPUs: Bad news for Intel = good news for AMD share price and vice versa. Looking at the real numbers, as you point out it doesnt really work. But you know how it goes....ya keep looking for that pattern so you can make the big kill. Looking back over the past 3 years, it looked like a satble pattern was starting to develope, but after the economy, that crapped out....no suprise.

    You have any ideas you want to share? Everything I've tried/come up with has been less than worthless.
  49. What we need is a third player in the market......


    Chinese to release X86-compatible CPU in 2009

    http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/604812/chinese-to-release-x86-compatible-cpu-in-2009.html

    At least they are looking where they will make the most $$$$
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs The Boss AMD