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: Joey Smith who wrote (82052)	12/4/1999 1:15:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Joey, As the size falls and competition intensifies there will be price drops. However the prior considered strategy of Intel to kill AMD with selective price cuts that did not hurt Intel is pretty much finished now and Intel will hurt intel at the same time. Of course Intel can bear those hurts better, but ti will say goodbye to high SP. Bill

To: Joey Smith who wrote (82052)	12/4/1999 1:44:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Joey, <I guess I differ in opinion with You, Charles, Jim, etc. in that Athlon will command any sort of price premium to CuMine. > Is there is a qualifier that is missing here? Do you mean to say Athlon will not command a premium at any equivalent speed grade? If so, I do not disagree with that. But, if Athlon is a speed grade or two ahead, which is what I expect then I have a hard time seeing why AMD will not get as good or better ASPs than Intel. <From what I hear, cost reductions have been greater than expected going to .18m and this WILL be reflected in Intel pricing across the board, from high-end to low-end, once volumes are there (Q1). High-end pricing will be much lower than traditional Intel high-end pricing. > It is very clear that Intel will get huge cost savings by going from Katmai PIIIs to CuMine PIIIs. That is a given. Now for the sake of discussion assume Intel saves $50 per unit savings by this move (or feel free to throw in a different number). Here is my question. Do you expect Intel to drop ASPs more than $50? This means they would have a revenue and profit drop on a year to year basis unless the units pickup more than say 25%. (Other people on the thread,please feel free to chip in with as much detail about your thinking as you can.) Chuck

To: Joey Smith who wrote (82052)	12/4/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Respond to of 1573092

Joey - RE: "From what I hear, cost reductions have been greater than expected going to .18m and this WILL be reflected in Intel pricing across the board, from high-end to low-end, once volumes are there (Q1)." All I can say is that this latest Intel Fiasco couldn't have come at a better time for AMD. IF FLOPPERMINE came out in on September 5, like it was originally planned to, Intel would have had a MAJOR one up on AMD. IF processors would have been available in massive quantities right NOW and there would probably would have been many more 700s and 733s available. And IF Intel would have had .18 processors out in these large quantities they would have begun lowering prices at least a month ago instead of the planned price drop in eight days. Since practically all Athlons on the market right now are made on the .25 process AMD would have had a tougher time cutting prices AND still making however much money they wanted per processor. But since Intel has performed like an "IF" company lately, one can't satisfy himself and look at what could have been. Now, the expected large price drops and greater availability of FLOPPERMINE will happen in Q1. But since this has been DELAYED by about a quarter, AMD is in a much better position to go up against Intel. In Q1 a great majority of every Athlon AMD sells will be made on the .18 process. This will lower Athlon core costs quite a bit (but AMD will still have the fixed costs of the L2 cache, casing, and whatever else). And yields will probably be better because the processor is much smaller. So AMD's costs will go down at about the same time as Intel's .18 processors will be available in a larger, more Intel-like quantity. And factor in that AMD has a strong chance to maintain a one speed grade aadvantage ahead of Intel in MHz and AMD seems well positioned to handle price cuts.

To: Joey Smith who wrote (82052)	12/4/1999 4:15:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Joey, <From what I hear, cost reductions have been greater than expected going to .18m and this WILL be reflected in Intel pricing across the board, from high-end to low-end, once volumes are there (Q1).> Here we are again, repeating blatant lies. It was shown many times that manufacturing costs are so low relative to their selling price, so you can't justify a $200 shave in prices when the whole cost is only $40. You cannot reduce the cost for more than $40, is it clear for you? I think it is, otherwise you would not post the real reasons behind Intel continuous price cuts: Message 12183707 "AMD's biggest problem is that Intel's strategy is not to give an inch to AMD no matter what the cost ..thus the 10 yr AMD stock trend." <Just my take. I'm just here to make money like everyone else.> So, which one was your honest take, Joey?