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 : ATI Technologies in 1997 (T.ATY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Serge Collins who wrote (4006)	9/1/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: Marc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5927

We have been hearing about Intel for 2 years now, and look at ATI numbers. HISTORICAL QUARTERLY RESULTS REVENUE (Thousands of U.S. Dollars) 1996 1997 1998 1999 1st Qtr NOV 76,051 104,555 167,826 327,388 2nd Qtr FEB 73,845 96,520 181,957 297,180 3rd Qtr MAY 73,374 86,063 182,758 302,039* 4th Qtr AUG 74,078 97,030 204,726 Now that Intel is out, the new thing will be nVidia, and then who ? S3 and then 3DFX, and then trident and then Neomagic ,ATI never said they own 100% of the market, so it's normal in this business to gain some and to lose some, people need to look at Sales numbers. Marc. I still think that ATI investors relation is not able to cope with the street, last week i saw a story on a web site the register. here an abstract: After a series of articles we wrote in the last ten days, Jim Boak, the director of Compaq?s Corporate Technical Strategy in the US, has written us an email outlining his company?s position. The full text is below. theregister.co.uk They were reporting false info, the comapny didn't liked it and they respond, what's wrong with this.

To: Serge Collins who wrote (4006)	9/1/1999 6:41:00 AM
From: Bid daddy	Respond to of 5927

Yes there are grounds for that, but it would be hard to right ATY off too soon as well! Short term pain.

To: Serge Collins who wrote (4006)	9/1/1999 8:22:00 AM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5927

People who understand the market understand what the i810 is trying to do. But to intel, the graphics industry as a whole is also immaterial. Especially if you look at price/mm^2 of die space compared to their CPU. It must give them nightmares. This is done to make them sell more CPUs and cut off other CPU suppliers -- note the slot1 & socket370 which is still heavily protected to cut off AMD from making cpus around. The thinking is that without a dedicated team to do graphics, they are probably limited in whether the graphics performance in future Whitneys can still follow moore's law. I suspect they could double their performance once, and then they'll be stuck until another team is brought in to design another core. But none of this is cost-effective. Buying the real3D and C&T cost them much more than what they can hope to get from all the i740 and i8x0 earnings in the next 10 yrs. Maybe this is indication that most people don't need faster graphics after all. That the current crop of tnt-2/G400/V3/Rage128pro is the absolute fastest 90% of computer users need in 3D. If this is true, then the next incarnation of i8x0 should be very close in performance, and even though nvidia will have a >2X faster tnt-2 and ATY has a chip that is >2X faster than th r128pro, there may be no (useful) apps that can take advantage of it. IE: the question should be : Is Moore's Law for Graphics dead? Last week, everyone was writing off Intel, but I wouldn't write them off so soon.