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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (64184)	7/4/1999 6:02:00 PM
From: fyo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583764

Paul - Re: They bleed money,all the while waiting for the "CYRIX TEAM" to deliver the next "Intel Chewer Upper". After a couple years of this, and no "Intel Chewer Uppers", and faced with the possibility of ONGOING, DEEPENING, SEVERE LOSSES, they get the message. You cannot blame Cyrix for that. NSM chose to focus on integration and virtually stalled development in non-MediaGX areas to achieve this. If that was the wrong thing to do, then the fault lies fully with NSM. Cyrix does actually have some very promising (and competitive, both in speeds and die-size) chips on the table. The question is when (and if) they reach commercial production. --fyodor

To: Paul Engel who wrote (64184)	7/6/1999 3:18:00 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583764

RE: "But that is two more years of brutal pricing in the low end." Hi Paul, Maybe, maybe not. On the low-end side, the processor does not quite stand out as expensive as it does on the high-end relative to the other components. Other components don't quite scale down in pricing like the CPU. There's a cost in supporting alternative vendors, and while second sourcing is normally done, some of the larger low-end players are only using one low-end CPU source. It depends on volume vs. cost of supporting alternative source, and other factors like reliability of distribution, roadmaps, etc. Plus, the pricing schedule is better when there's only one source. So, cost wise, for the low-end, one source can be better financially. Aren't some high volume players going single source - didn't eMachines just do this? I thought HP's P-PC products (hand-helds) are using single source. Best, Amy J