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: Elmer who wrote (123908)	12/31/2000 12:57:11 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 186894

EP,<<<Lets give credit where credit is due. AMD does hurt Intel's ASPs. AMD forces Intel to lower the cost of processors aimed at the consumer market and there's no denying that. In turn that drags down even the business ASPs where AMD has essentially no presence.>>> Competition is good. Otherwise Intel would be a monopoly, and I would agree that monopolies are probably not good for anyone. If Intel can't compete against AMD, then they don't deserve to succeed. But, let's face it. AMD has quite a track record when it comes to competing against Intel. Jerry Sanders has a 30 year track record of creating wealth mostly for himself and losing money for shareholders. What was that saying, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time"? It is amazing that he can still generate so much support from Dan3, Kap4kan, and a lot of others on this and the AMD threads. Must be the Stockholm syndrom. Mary

To: Elmer who wrote (123908)	12/31/2000 1:59:38 PM
From: Hightechhooper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, I agree with everything you said but I really don't see the price situation the way you do. INTC has always fought AMD with good lowend pricing while keeping "sweet spot" and high end pricing high. The only times INTC has brought prices down in those segments (outside of normal manufacturing efficiencies) is when overall industry demand was poor (like now). AMD simply does not have the capacity to dictate prices for this market. Look at the pricing advantage INTC has maintained over AMD during the past year, which is clearly the most successful year AMD has ever had in terms of competitive performance versus INTC. For the same clock speed INTC system prices have remained at a significant premium to AMD and have not declined outside of "normal" price reductions. Because INTC will get back to their typical performance gap versus AMD in the next 6 months (thanks to the P4) they will not sacrifice margin across all their business to retain market share in the very short run. You simply have to look at their past pricing history to see that. INTC can use any excess capcity now to accelerate the rollout of P4. That is the point they want to get quickly because at that point they can reinstate the performance gap. They are not like a DRAM manufacturer that will price to fill capacity. When you monopolize total industry capacity for a product the way INTC does MPU's, a small player like AMD cannot control pricing. Can you point to any price moves that would indicate INTC pricing has suffered at the hands of AMD's cuts? I believe Paul has data that suggest AMD is fighting against itself and that is exactly what the macro-economic's of this monopolistic situation would suggest. I would be happy to alter my views if you can point to some data that supports your view. thanks and god help us all,

To: Elmer who wrote (123908)	12/31/2000 2:11:29 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: AMD is butting their head up against the limit on their .18u process while Intel still has about 33% headroom left on it's .18u process Aren't you counting your chickens before they are hatched? Let's see how the Palamino core scales. If people start discounting Intel MHZ by a third due to P4's winchip like IPC, P4's nominal clock speed may not be enough. So far, the Jury is out on acceptance of Intel's low IPC part. AMD has no reliable chipset support. You mean, as opposed to all the recalled chipsets and motherboards Intel has proffered this past year? AMD's chipsets, on average, have been more reliable than Intel's during the last year and a half. AMD has a disaster of a bus architecture which has made SMP essentially impossible You're stretching there, SMP for Athlon is late, but has recently been publicly demonstrated. It will get here. AMD has... inability to manufacture large die The original Athlons were 184mm2, and AMD didn't seem to have any trouble manufacturing them. AMD's 64 bit processor is going to be around 100mm2 or so. Regardless of whether or not they can manufacture very large die, they don't seem to need to. Intel had to castrate the P4 because they couldn't manufacture it at its designed size. I'd say we are looking at a case where AMD can manufacture die as large as they need to, while Intel can't. The fact that Intel can use up more wafers per working chip produced isn't a wonderful thing - especially when they still had to mangle the chip's performance to make it small enough to manufacture. Dan