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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (106487)	8/1/2000 2:35:35 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

SCUMbria - re: "If the CPU needs a field loaded microcode patch to run at speed, it is not production worthy by any stretch of the imagination." You don't GET IT !!! Only ONE PERSON said a Microcode patch was needed - TOM ! Anand and Sharky said NOTHING about such a requirement ! Yet you stated a BIOS and Microcode had nothing to so with each other !! How many sides of the street do you play at one time? Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (106487)	8/1/2000 2:45:44 AM
From: Eric K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria-- Re: Intel is rushing their product introductions, and looking very poorly in the process. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. Four months after the 1 GHz "release," it is still not possible to get a 1 GHz P3 system from anyone but Dell and IBM. Yet, the people on this thread and most articles written insist that Intel is at least at parity speedwise. Even if a person acknowledges that AMD is slightly ahead, he or she makes the absurd assertion that who has the highest speed processor available in the best volumes is irrelevant because, of course, processor distributions don't follow a normal distribution and there is no correlation between the highest speed grade available and the average speed grade available. I'm not really sure what AMD should do though. There is certainly some merit to letting Intel stay slightly ahead in the speed race-- "revenue rights instead of bragging rights" as Sanders said on a cnbc interview a while back, plus Intel does have the $500B market cap and might feel the need to do something dangerous if Mr. $11B were publicly acknowledged to be outperforming it in its core business. Hopefully you're right, and the fluff investors receive isn't reflective of what the oems think. However, since the main upcoming danger for AMD is stalled marketshare increases due to the absence of corporate penetration, and corporate opinion (and, hence, demand) is largely affected by what it reads about AMD's long term viability and competitiveness, this Intel-ectually dishonest campaign has worked fairly effectively so far. -Eric