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: Elmer who wrote (85345)	1/5/2000 11:26:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Elmer - RE: "They don't do things that way. They bring up a new processor in 1 fab, like the one PB works in, They aren't going to have multiple fabs sitting there doing nothing. Not when they still can't fully meet demand for existing products. Only when they have the recipe down will they proliferate the product through the many fabs." Of course, how could I have forgotten Intel's copy-exactly.. I guess what I posted is a situation that could have happened to AMD since they have one fully operational microprocessor fab. "After that I'm afraid it's probably lights out." Funny how you are so confident about a set of foils, but I guess you actually know what is on the foils... What makes you so sure Mustang will be a dud next to Willy? Intel has bet Willy's performance on a chipset that will demand DRDRAM, but what if prices don't fall? Maybe Intel will have a DDR SDRAM capable chipset also available, but if Willy's platform was designed for DRDRAM from the get-go I would think DDR SDRAM would lower Willy's performance. I'll wait for info to come out of the IDF and let the people who know about processors write articles about it before I even give a thought about Willy turning any Athlon derivative's lights out.

To: Elmer who wrote (85345)	1/6/2000 3:24:00 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1573092

Elmer, re:<demand is huge for all processors> I don't buy this argument. For every analyst who warned about a shortage of chips in the mid-segment, there was another analyst who talked about Y2K order deferrals in the business segment (mostly faster CPU's). So why didn't Intel downbin some of their PIII's from 600 to where demand was stronger? Why didn't they take some 600 MHz 133-bus chips that no one could use and mark them down to 450/100 MHz bus? Because they wanted to maximize their short term profits at the expense of their customers needs. A strategy that has come back to bite them in the arse, as with Gateway. Why did they annouce vaporware 750 and 800 MHz chips? That resulted in order cancellations for the 733's which were finally starting to show up. The reason for that one is egonomics, not economics. Petz