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 (107184)	4/21/2000 10:17:00 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573841

Dear Elmer: Using their competitor AMD as a guide, who went from 5.7M in Q3 to 6M in Q4 and to 6.5M in Q1, Intel should be able to go from 31M in Q3 to 32.6M in Q4 and 35.4M in Q1. They only did 31.8M in Q4 and 31.8M in Q1 from CC. Ramp is what is not good. See previous message. I think it was planned for (They claim it will be fixed in the next quarter (it takes a quarter to produce the fixes in the first mask layers)) but not executed (the planned bin splits are much higher than the actual ones). The first fix was to fix overall yields and the last two were to fix the bin splits. The last two fixes have just not worked well enough. Pete

To: Elmer who wrote (107184)	4/21/2000 10:53:00 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573841

Elmer Re..<<<<<I think you answered your own question already before you even asked it. As you stated above, Intel didn't forecast the jump in demand until 1999 so you are criticizing them for not starting capacity expansion in 1998? I don't think your argument is well thought out. You miss the obvious and overlook the significance of your own statements. You have yet to show where Intel could have improved their capacity planning short of a better crystal ball. Unlike you they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. >>>>>> Elmer, you are so busy spreading fudd you can't seem to even put a coherent post together. If Intel knew an expansion was coming, why not start building a new fab two yrs ago, so when the sales pick up, Intel would be ready. Intel had in fact started doing just that, but then decided to go cheap and save some taxes and ditched Forth Worth. In addition' when Intel started the price war and drove Cyrix and IDT out of business, what the hell did Intel think would happen. It hardly takes a genius to figure that one out. Another real astute move, similar to Rambus. Jerry at AMD however threw the dice and came up 7s. Dresden is coming on line because of Jerry's bet the company gamble, which will pay off handsomely. Many here criticized Jerry at that time; but look who is laughing now. As far as this crystal ball thing you have; all companies hire planners who's job it is to do just that; take an educated guess, and make plans accordingly. AMD did precisely just that, why didn't Intel?

To: Elmer who wrote (107184)	4/21/2000 11:53:00 AM
From: that_crazy_doug	Respond to of 1573841

<< I think you answered your own question already before you even asked it. As you stated above, Intel didn't forecast the jump in demand until 1999 so you are criticizing them for not starting capacity expansion in 1998? I don't think your argument is well thought out. You miss the obvious and overlook the significance of your own statements. You have yet to show where Intel could have improved their capacity planning short of a better crystal ball. Unlike you they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. >> They had 8% YOY growth in Q4 and 13% in Q1. That is the great unexpected demand you are talking about. The process shrink should double capacity by itself since you can get twice as many processors on a wafer. Obviously they didn't have all it's fabs switched, however, for them to be so weak on the supply side and still have good yields at .18 it forces several of the following assumptions. 1) They had absolutely 0 extra fab space last year. 2) They were only able to get the effect of 13% of the fab space to .18 in Q1. This isn't an issue of monumental planning, if the ramp was going good they'd double capacity without even adding a new fab. It's not like the demand was for 100% more than what they had last year. Also with the semi-conductor recession you keep referring to, it also seems obvious they weren't running full tilt back then.

To: Elmer who wrote (107184)	4/21/2000 12:52:00 PM
From: Steve Porter	Respond to of 1573841

Elmer, I don't think your FUD is going to work on Tad. Hell it hasn't worked on anyone else. Can you honestly say you weren't disappointed by Intel's earnings. I know I was. An additional $140Million of BS 'income' (additional over the $500M from the previous quarter that is). Can you honestly say Intel's execution on all aspects of supplying the market demand hasn't been disappointing. (chipsets, CPUs, etc.) Intel is supposed to be a mighty infallible organization (implied by the constant tone of your posts). Somethign just doesn't add up here Elmer. I agree with Tad's assessment that Intel is due for a correction. Valuation is fast outpacing revenue growth. The P/E is getting larger and larger and there is just NO justification for it to continue. Regards, Steve