Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (83202)	6/10/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jimeeee, Toneee, I see, when the Knicks win, I don't here from youse! 3-2 going to MSG....baybee... Bird who....? Message 10057602 Check the time on it. Tony

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (83202)	6/10/1999 12:41:00 PM
From: Robert Douglas	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Jim, I don't much like New York, the city. I dislike Sprewell, never cared for Patrick Ewing, think LJ is a horrific underachiever, know little about Camby or Thomas, yet I find myself cheering loudly for the Knicks. What is it? -Robert

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (83202)	6/14/1999 5:47:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Jimmee,>>>So Cluney, the Knicks were done, heh?<<< I underestimated the Camby Man - the Camby Man can (match up with Duncan?). OTOT - INTC is the Fab Market Babes Stock pick of the day: fabmktbabe.com Stock of the Day 6/14/99 The Mighty Intel / INTC So it looks as though chips are back in style again. And all it took was the mighty Intel revolutionizing the industry... Once again. So in the spirit of highlighting that which is proactive, and, of course, giving an update as to what all of this means for the chips and the chip equipment guys, let's once again explain it all in terms that the media at large has yet to lie out for all of us. Otherwise known as easily understandable. First off, as a quick review, you might remember that late last week Intel announced that it would soon be making moves to create chips that are both faster and easier. Sounds smart enough, but what is really happening here? Good question. So here goes. Believe it or not, stamping out chips is not as easy as it sounds, not to mention is a tad bit expensive. Something about making changes is never cheap... But enough with the obvious, here is what it all means. While it is very easy to small things in a small area, it is much tougher to make a lot of small things in a large area. For example, this is why notebook screens are so expensive, as putting 3 million transistors on a chip the size of a postage stamp is nothing, but distributing them uniformly over a 14-inch screen and getting it right just 7 out of 10 times was, until relatively recently, equal to your chances of getting a size 6 off-white sweater at Nordstrom's winter sale. Which brings us to our next question... Why is all of this so difficult? Quite simple really -- it is just tough to achieve good quality (uniformity) with larger sizes. But INTC has done it. So here is how it all works. Chips are made in a one shot process -- thus if a company is able to make the die (silicon wafer that the chip is built upon) bigger, with one pass through on the assembly line there will simply be more output. For example, if previously in one pass through the yields were 9/10 = 90%, with the new method, a 90% yield would still be achieved but this time 27/30 chips would be produced. Hopefully that explains all of the hoopla. So given the above, what does all of this mean for the rest of the industry? Good question. First off, while the process will ultimately save money, in the 3-5 year timeframe, but in the short term it will cost a heck of a lot of money. Thus, it would seem that the natural conclusion here is, given the short horizon of the Street, that these things would be neutral at best. However, offsetting all of this is one crazy fact: INTC has cash. Which is not necessarily something that can be transferred to its competitors. Consequently, from AMD's perspective, it would appear as though this company is going to have to strike up some serious partnership agreements if it is to survive. And fast. As for Cyrix, they are probably dead. But contrary to all of this, one should remember that for the chip equipment guys they will have to retool their lines to produce compatible equipment. Thus the above "opportunity" it is not as much of a boon as one would think, at least in the short term. Finally, as we wrap all of this up, one should keep in mind that INTC has previously stated that they were going to copper-based chips, a process which I do believe IBM owns, and a reversal of INTC's earlier position of saying that they were not interested in copper based chips. Consequently, one should naturally surmise that INTC will be paying IBM some heavy royalties, and thus it will be a good time for IBM's chip division.