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: Charles R who wrote (86989)	1/13/2000 7:30:00 PM
From: Joey Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572474

Charles, conservative Intel forecast 61% GM for entire year 2000. They don't seem to think Intel will lose much business to AMD in the high-end. I guess Intel's core business might do o.k. afterall. joey

To: Charles R who wrote (86989)	1/13/2000 7:31:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1572474

Chuck, <This was a BAD quarter for Intel's core business.> You're right. What was I thinking? In fact, Intel is suffering so bad in their core business that they plan on exiting the microprocessor business in 2000 in their pursuit to become a communications company. This isn't public knowledge, but then again, your crack inside sources should have already informed you. <Actually, I have not bothered to break down these numbers but it is entirely possible that Intel moved some revenues from the other groups to IABG to make it look about even!> Geez, what are you going to accuse Intel of next? I just said that some business was shifted out of IABG into other groups during the course of 1999, and now you are saying that the exact opposite is "possible"? You are truly in denial mode here, Chuck. Intel sold out, 0.18u ramp is faster than Intel originally planned, PB reports more Coppermines shipped than previously planned, inventories are down, gross margins are up, and Intel soundly beat estimates. And yet you accuse me of ignoring the facts? Please, Chuck. Tenchusatsu

To: Charles R who wrote (86989)	1/13/2000 8:17:00 PM
From: Windsock	Respond to of 1572474

Re:"This was a BAD quarter for Intel's core business. That you can't see it does not make it any better." Hey Chuckster, it really chaps your hide that you were wrong about Intel. Get over it. The good news from Intel also means good news for AMD. Does that help you?

To: Charles R who wrote (86989)	1/13/2000 9:49:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572474

Re: "Intel has networking business, flash business, Level One business, Dialogic business to name a few. Actually, I have not bothered to break down these numbers but it is entirely possible that Intel moved some revenues from the other groups to IABG to make it look about even!" And it's also possible that you just can't stand being so wrong. Between you, Stevie and Alber... ahhh I mean Bill you guys just flat out blew what was obvious to a blindman. Re: "This was a BAD quarter for Intel's core business. That you can't see it does not make it any better." ASPs were up. Volumes were up. Profits were up. You were way wrong and it's just killing you. Good! EP

To: Charles R who wrote (86989)	1/15/2000 2:38:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572474

Chuckles - Re: "Intel has networking business, flash business, Level One business, Dialogic business to name a few. Actually, I have not bothered to break down these numbers but it is entirely possible that Intel moved some revenues from the other groups to IABG to make it look about even!" Every one on Wall Street already knows that AMD is moving REVENUE from their FLASH operation to their CPU division - to make it look about even or show a profit. Your stupid bull shit can be applied to AMD juts as you apply it to Intel. It sure makes you look like an AMDroid Whiney in the first degree. Paul