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 40.56

+10.2%

Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Steve Porter who wrote (50687)	3/17/1998 1:16:00 PM
From: Jeff Fox	Read Replies (1) of 186894

Steve, re: Celeron Adminitedly, some people perceive Cyrix or AMD to be crap and won't buy them for that reason.. Intel is risking their future on this cacheless PII idea. Now they can survive by increasing advertising but that is increasing $$$$.. I'm not sure how this will play out. Whoa - cool your jets, Steve. You are overly worried 'bout Intel... Celeron is just one of a whole family of Intel processors. Intel will continue to sell PII's in ever increasing volume. Celeron is not a product shift. Intel is not "going cacheless". Celeron is just one price/performance choice of a whole line of products. There is not any perception that Celeron is "crap" as you say. Celeron is a simply a PII that will outperform cacheless K6. It is really an old and successful Intel product strategy played out over three times now. Introduce a new architecture at the highest possible level, then backfill the lower price/performance niches. To remind you of two: Intel introduced the 386DX - 32 bit bus with a companion cache system (82396 I think it was), called "smartcache". This was the highest performing PC system at the time. - A year later the 386SX with 16 bit bus. (At the time OEM's could design with existing 16 bit wide peripheral chips much cheaper.) This was the product line backfill. Intel introduced the 486DX - with internal L1 cache and floating point units; the highest performing PC processor of its time. - A year later the 486SX without the FPU. This was the product line backfill. Both times the insiders howled "intentionally crippled" and "crap". However each of these were wildly successful in the market. In fact it was the 386SX that did the trick to end the 286 generation. (Remember the Red X campaign?). A little side note - the 386SX was so successful Intel had a problem - The brand "SX" became more well known that "386"! Your problem is that AMD/Cyrix/NSM are at a level of ability to field just one processor at time. Well, almost field a processor at a time. A new product, like the K6, or a K63D, replaces all previous products. The investors know this and are thus tuned to interpret company futures on the merits of the one offering against the whole market spectrum of PC computing. This is their problem. Please understand that this is not the case at all for Intel and Celeron. Jeff

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next