Re: noticed you didn't refute that statement.
Paul, you are beneath contempt.
I posted a table clearly showing that Intel lost $5 Billion to $10 Billion this year, including links to Intel's own website that proved it and you didn't respond with anything intelligible, just your usual gibberish.
The name of the game being played is "make the other guy's FABs obsolete." AMD prematurely obsoleted $10 Billion dollars worth of Intel FABs (the whole .18 AL generation) with their .18 copper process while Intel has managed to obsolete Austin with its new .13 copper Celerons.
The difference is, AMD had already depreciated Austin down to its real value (about zero), while Intel continues to pretend that the part of its FAB capacity that has been rendered worthless is worth $5 Billion.
Such concepts are way, way, way, beyond your comprehension, so why should I bother to even attempt to explain them to you?
Intel's copper .13 barely beats AMD's copper .18, and AMD is ramping copper .13 and copper/SOI .13. Intel is taking about a year and a half to go from AL .18 to CU .13 at $7.5 Billion per year, so the actual cost of moving to copper for Intel is closer to $12.5 Billion.
When they're done, their plain .13 copper process will be a year behind AMD's SOI/Copper .13 process and Intel will have to spend another $5 Billion to $10 Billion to catch up - by which time AMD will again be ahead. |
