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: Paul Engel who wrote (83811)	6/18/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, Re: "Incremental improvements to several process modules have been identified with "Mhz" gains estimated for each module. If these are all implemented as planned and achieve their targets, the Coppermine speed will be improved to meet the initial goals - just with process tweaks. November would give Intel enough time to implement the process changes, fine tune them, and get "first" samples out to customers. Intel has used SRAM test vehicles to debug the process and these have run at 900+ MHz with no problems. The actual Coppermine results have been a show-stopper for Intel and they haven't figured out yet why the part is not meeting performance specifications and targets." Please let me know if I am understanding your post (which is very detailed, frank and objective, thanks). Are you saying that the Coppermine design is coming up mysteriously slower than expected, and Intel is trying to make up the difference with process tweaks? Thanks again, Tony Editing. And, I do understand that Intel will not be satisfied with the process tweaks bailing out the speed problem in Coppermine, but will continue to pursue the "design" related problem. Is that true?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (83811)	6/18/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<Paul - re: 100% Burn-in can be employed to cover reliability issues while the modified process is requalified.> Requalification and volume by November. I don't think so. November does not make any sense from the marketing (Chrisms season) point of view either. I think Intel should give conservative January production guidance. Kap.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (83811)	6/18/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: Maverick	Respond to of 186894

For the 2nd consecutive day, Wall Street is saying negative things about this leading chip maker. Yesterday, CS First Boston cut estimates for FY99 from $2.32 to $2.25 and FY00 EPS from $2.65 to $2.55 as the firm expects Intel's fiscal Q2 earnings to come in a penny shy of current Wall Street projections due to lower unit shipments and lower processor average selling prices. However, CS First Boston maintained its "buy" rating on the stock. This time around, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter downgraded the semiconductor maker from "strong buy" to "market outperform" and cut FY99 and FY00 EPS estimates from $2.35 and $2.60 per share, to $2.25 and $2.55 per share, respectively. The decision to lower estimates and downgrade the stock stems from talks with management that indicated that the 0.18 micron manufacturing process of Pentium III processors will see some delays. Hence, since 0.18 micron production will be pushed out, Morgan Stanley expects that this will lead to lower average selling prices for the remaining Intel products. Given that Intel is due to report Q2 earnings in mid-July, these two latest research reports do not bode well for the stock. In fact, the stock has been relegated to a trading range for the past several months, trading between $50 and $60 (adjusted for a 2-1 stock split in April) and is not expected to see the upper end of this range for at least the next couple of weeks. While the stock was trading just above $60 at the beginning of 1999 and reached a high of $71 27/32 shortly thereafter, it has been all downhill since then. The next few weeks will be tough for investors as they sit and wait for Intel's Q2 report which will dictate how soon this stock regains its luster again. - RN

To: Paul Engel who wrote (83811)	6/18/1999 1:13:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, Thanks for the coppermine status. It appears that a November volume production ramp would require all problems solved by August and that seems a tad agressive frankly. Apparently it was yielding well at 500Mhz. With its smaller die size and lower production costs than PIII do you see a Coppermine introduced at say 500 and 533(RDRAM version). Seeing as they have the fab capacity in place it would seem to me they should swallow their pride and pump out 500Mhz coppermines while the speedwork goes in parallell. And the Coppermines are faster on a per clock basis than PIII's anyway. Regards, Kash