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: Tony Viola who wrote (115067)	10/28/2000 5:33:40 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

TOny, RE:"P4 should better anything AMD has" I still think that's uncertain right now. P4 may clock higher but do too much less work with almost double the die size. On .13u the real Willy will show up but on .13 the K7 die shrinks too. Still, in true form, Mhz will tell a lot....especially if the IPC is close. Apparently it won't be so we'll just have to see. Jim

To: Tony Viola who wrote (115067)	10/28/2000 5:39:45 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Re:"How does it feel backing a company that is despised by both the AMD and Intel camps?" Actually, it feels good to hear Intel and AMD squealing. Rambus must be doing something right. Intel is not loved by anyone I know. For that matter, neither is AMD. Both these companies are tolerated for their products. It looks like a change in P4 direction to SDRAM will further commoditize the market for the P4 and this will benefit AMD greatly. Intel will not be able to distinguish its products from AMDs. After all, they both will be bandwidth limited architectures. This should open the market to companies other than Intel and AMD in the future who are willing to take a risk on leadership products. The abnegation of its leadership role will open opportunitities for new companies and new technologies. As to your other point, i.e., that Grove made the errors. It looks to me like the errors were made under Barrett's watch. 1) They cut the 820 performance apparently for market positioning reasons ( about 15%). 2) They tried to marry the 820 to a MTH which did not work. and gave the 820 a "black eye". 3) Having screwed up several times already they tried again to marry a MTP to the Timna SOIC solution. Which was idiotic IMO. 4) They then had to cancel the Timna because of the MTP. 1) and 2) resulted in reduced sales for the 820. 3) resulted in recall of 1M 820 that used the MTH. The launch of the 820 was made under Barrett's watch not Grove's watch. All of these decisions appear to have been made by product marketing and they were all mistakes. I am sure they were looking for someone else to blame when the shit hit the fan. RAMBUS was the likely scape goat. IMO: The 820 should have been RDRAM only. Timna should have been RDRAM only. The desktop P4 should remain RDRAM only. But having gotten it wrong 2 out of 3 times already, I'm sure the product marketing people at Intel will go for the 3rd strike. Had the 820 launch been flawless, the 820 volume would have ramped earlier and reached a higher peak volume and this would have driven the price of RDRAM down earlier. Grove had nothing to do with this fiasco. I'd bet that the same product marketing guys are still in charge. JMO