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: Paul Engel who wrote (115012)	10/27/2000 4:16:23 PM
From: EricRR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

When the Pentium was launched, AMD was right there with their 120 MHz 486 - the IBM/Motorola/Apple Intel-Killer PowerPC for the new Apple PowerMacs was nearly simultaneously introduced, and Microsoft, HP, SGI, Compaq, Dec, etc. - all co-conspirators in the ACE Consortium - were pimping and pumping the MIPS/Risc alternative with Windows NT. Intel has always had competition - and has a 32 year track record of out-distancing its competition And what was Intel's market cap relative to the others? Also AMD really was just an imitator back then. Something is very wrong with CW understanding of the P4. It has a double speed core- 3GHz! But all the rumors we hear say low IPC when rated at 1.5GHz? Could there really be a major design flaw, or is Intel brilliantly sandbagging? And Intel makes this huge expensive chip, and markets it to consumers first? What about the workstation and server types who who were the early adapters of the P-Pro and Pentium? And why this 400 MHz gap? It didn't happen at other core rollouts- marketing must be having fits. If P4 really is so good, why is there an Intel design team in Austin working on a new 32 bit core as we speak? I thought this core was supposed to last for 5 years? Isn't IA 64 supposed to take over by then? It's easy for us Droids to claim Intel has lost it, but is there another explanation?