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: Amy J who wrote (86327)	1/10/2000 3:31:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573092

Amy - <When I take your two posts together, is there some type dependent relationship between being able to supply mature low-end CPUs and high-end 800's at the same time, that would impact Gateway?> Not that I'm aware of, at lest in a manufacturing sense. I don't see how the .18 ramp inhibited, to the first order, Intel's ability to supply .25 micron parts. At the moment there are .25 fabs, and .18 fabs. It has been posted here that GTW has said 1 week turnaround for PIII 800 systems. However, GTW also said they were having a hard time obtaining BX boards, and GTW is a "BX shop". They would need a good supply of BX boards to ship Coppermine systems, as well as the .25 systems. I have no idea what is going on w.r.t. the BX issue. PB

To: Amy J who wrote (86327)	1/10/2000 9:38:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 1573092

Amy, All the production feedback loops were defeated by the simultaneous problems with Rambus/820/BX and the P-III forced march. This was a progressive failure. The rambus/820 problems caused an abrupt demand for the BX product and Intel could not ramp that fast enough. Shortages of P-III caused people to look for older product and that could not be ramped in time either. With 3 months advance warning thie problem would not have appeared. That three months is probably about how much Intel advanced the schedules in mid year to counter the Athlon threat. There is no doubt that there was preferential supply to certain people? Was that because Dell saw further forward in anticipation of these problems and booked bigger orders? Or did they both rush to Intel and Dell got a larger shares. Triage, is the word used where a scarce, life or death, resource is denied to someone. Was triage practiced by Intel? Of course there was, the spot market dried up totally, so did the retail. Another mistake by Intel as that made 1000's of SD shops stsrt to build Athlon based systems. In truth, Intel had no good choices, just a number of bad ones. Each decision to give parts to one person would hurt another person. So they chose Dell to be the supplier with no/fewer shortages. How did IBM/CPQ fare in this debacle? less badly as they were not as far into the extremely short production cycle as Dell and GTW that the direct model uses. Bill