Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 43.48

+8.6%

Dec 2 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Paul Engel who wrote (152120)	12/11/2001 8:00:15 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) of 186894

Paul, thanks for the sobering article. However, Kevin Krewell says something quite misleading: <One of the reasons for McKinley's bigger price tag, Krewell said, is that it will cover nearly 440 square millimeters in area--or more than twice that of the Pentium 4. "One problem is that McKinley...is expensive to manufacture. It also means yields are lower," he said. "Not until you get into Madison and Deerfield in 2003 do you start talking about volume."> Perhaps Krewell forgot that McKinley doesn't require off-chip cache like Merced, or that the die size isn't that much bigger than Cascades. (Well, actually it is, but when Cascades is approx. 370 mm2, another 50 mm2 or so isn't going to hurt. <G>) He of all people should know that die size means almost squat when you're talking about low volumes and high profit margins. Plus Krewell is assuming that Madison and Deerfield is Intel's key to higher volumes. Maybe he should know that Madison has twice the cache of McKinley, so once again the die size will be huge. But of course, that's a moot point as I said before. Tenchusatsu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next