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: Rick Jones who wrote (70494)	8/31/1999 9:09:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1574040

Rick, you are either an iNTEl-dolt or semi-trained Intel's PR agent. I suspect both. You mastered to sneak into the AMD thread with an innocent remark, and I was stupid enough to allow you the full-scale Intel propaganda. My last move in our ping-pong word game, and you win (of course): <If profits don't matter, then it is irrelevant. > The standard scientific answer is: If market prices wouldn't be dictated by predatory pricing of the monopolist Intel, profits could be well positive. See also: <-- you miss the point...Covington disaster to lose the low end, to Mendocino winning it back in less than 12 months.> No, it is you who deliberately wants to hide the point. And the point is that if Intel would not be able to subsidize Celeron production from the high-end PC market, they would never get the low-end market back. Just remember that actual Intel gross profit margins are 3% only as you seem to indirectly agree: <the market values Intel at $82/shr. The balance sheet says profits are increasing. How they do it, I don't care> If you are at the top of Ponzi scheme, you sure don't care. However you should be grown enough up to understand that even Intel can't print money yet, so if they buy back shares, it comes from the same pocket no matter how fraudulent and deceptive the official bookkeeping is. Eventually people who are participating in the scheme at $82 will get it, and your cardhouse will collapse. <Most of the OEM's seem happy to let Intel do the dirty work for them. > Happy? Dirty job? Re-tooling motherboard's assembly lines is the dirty job, not internal R&D to built a matching CPU-chip set using internal documentation and working around mutual bugs. Yours is a laughable statement. OEMs can barely keep up with unprofitably short product cycles. Products have no maturity period, and no time to make any profits. The Intel "product differentiation" and frequent switching (socket7-8-Slot1-Slot2-Socket370-Socket400-SlotM?) leaves OEM with huge expenses for re-tooling, and with skinny profits. Those 2-3 OEMs you mentioned are just lucky to reap the low-hanging fruits of CPU price war. How many others were denied the i430 socket7 shipset? How many 440 chipsets were bundled with those i430? Yes, you may call it as "successful Intel strategy". <If there is one public "OOPS" on any of these, the impression, rightly or wrongly, will be that K7 systems are unsafe.> Should I conclude that this is the recent Intel PR tactics to dislodge Athlon? With expected Athlon production of less than 2% od PC market, I don't think it is important what illiterate Joe is thinking when reading all these cries about board stability. For this level of production there are enough educated PC users who understand things correctly. At least I am much sure all Universities who usually are budget-starved will go for Athlons for their immediate computational needs, just because 40% increase in FPU power for the same price is something to think about. Finally, all your scores are invalid since the test did not have a form of multiple choice answers.