Paul,
Thanks for the response!
<< 3D is complex and there are constantly evolving ways to do this - with new chip sets, with software, etc. Thus, to incorporate this function on a motherboard is too risky. The chance of selecting the "right" 3D implementation is slim (or none). It is best left as a "plug-in" option. >>
I am a little confused. From hearing CHPS management talk at Robertson Stevens a long time ago, I was left with the impression that Auburn had a good chance to be the future '3D' standard bc of the fact that Intel does control a nice % of motherboards (ie. Intel will be able to put someone's 3D chip on any motherboard, with a little extra cost?).
<< However, Compaq & Dell can't have everything their way entirely. Generally, these companies place LARGE CPU orders with Intel. >>
But won't Compaq, Dell, IBM, HP kind of get their way entirely for the same volume reasons Intel can (ie. only a few companies can order such large numbers, thus getting better discounts)? Do you prefer one of the boxmakers stock prices now?
A person, named Joe Arena, who reminds me of you and frequently posts excellent Intel info on AOL,(especially about how Intel has such a capacity advantage) has never changed his long term bullish thoughts on intel, but two things he said in a recent post were interesting to me...
He said, "With AMD and CYRX closing the price/performance gap, it is axiomatic from a margin and profit perspective that INTC must now rapidly push MMX into the mainstream and low end segments, and begin cutting prices on Pentium II in a manner which deviates ssignificantly from it's previously successful business model."
and
He said, "Ultimately, the short term growth story of INTC is no longer as compelling as it has been in the last few years...Does this mean that I no longer believe that INTC will grow to $50 Billion in 2000? No,..."
Wondered what your thoughts were on those statements?
Thanks
Robert
P.S. Does the hinted stuff Intel is working on include something about voice recognition? |
