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: tejek who wrote (75233)	10/12/1999 8:05:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585090

ted - <Did they say what the ASP number was for Q3?> I don't believe Intel explicitly reports this number, although they may hint at it. PB

To: tejek who wrote (75233)	10/12/1999 9:07:00 PM
From: L. Adam Latham	Respond to of 1585090

ted: Re: Thanks for the clarification. I am listening to the CC as well but due to 'net congestion' missed that part on margins. For margins to drop at all, I had thought ASPs had to play a role. Did they say what the ASP number was for Q3? The management did not say what ASPs were, and have a policy not to. They definitely said lower ASPs were one of three reasons why the gross margin percentage dropped 0.7%. But my interpretation of their comments were that ASPs would rebound in Q4. They didn't come out and say ASPs would increase, but said they expected a product mix that would include more higher-priced items, which essentially implied increased ASPs, IMO. Enough about this here. I'll probably post more of my thoughts on the Intel thread. Adam - my opinions only, not Intel's