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: steve harris who wrote (90150)	1/28/2000 12:19:00 AM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583677

Steve Re <<With a float of 2.57 billion shares, they were about 77 million dollars short of net income. Whatever there margins are, that's a lot of coppermines isn't it? At 8% margin and the ASP of $2500 per box, it comes out to 385,000 Coppermines. Not that much but a large percentage of Intel's total Coppermine shipment. Mani

To: steve harris who wrote (90150)	1/28/2000 12:00:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583677

With a float of 2.57 billion shares, they were about 77 million dollars short of net income. Whatever there margins are, that's a lot of coppermines isn't it? steve .03 shortfall: Steve, if all of the above is true, I still have 3 questions: 1. Why is Dell sticking with a supplier that screwed them? 2. Why is it that a couple days after that article, Dell gave guidance that revenue would slow to around 30% this year? 3. Why did Dell, suffering through an apparent chip shortage, not contact AMD and try to buy some of AMD's surplus chips? What competent company would not make every effort to prevent a loss of business? Its been my experience that most things in business tend to have a logical explanation. In the case of Dell and GTW and Intel, the explanations being provided or not being provided do not seem logical and do not add up. ted