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: fingolfen who wrote (127313)	2/13/2001 3:56:00 PM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Intel's cost/die will drop 30% on the 300mm process.... And you sould see the wafers!!!! They're like freekin Pizza Pie's, and the level of Fab Automation blew me away. My guess would be that 30% cost reduction is a "conservative" estimate. Can you say.... Increased Productivity?? Wooops, Lunch Time is over, back to the "trenches" (Get it? O.K., it's an Etch joke, sorry). Semi

To: fingolfen who wrote (127313)	2/13/2001 3:58:15 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

fingolfen the analysts is probably wrong. But I am getting tired of typing responses :-)) so lets agree to disagree. My point was that the cost of p4s should be high even on .13 assuming that the yields would be the same as analyst quoted. Regards -Albert

To: fingolfen who wrote (127313)	2/13/2001 4:13:05 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

fingolfen, you should be worried about Intel beating AMD to 300mm by over 2 years as Intel's cost/die will drop 30% on the 300mm process.... Ok, suppose you are right, and Intel achieves capacity to build billion processors. Then what? The market can absorb barely 200 million processors at ASPs Intel is accustomed to. Where will all this capacity go? Ok, suppose the manufacturing cost to make a single processor goes down from say $30 to $21. That doesn't do much good, if the ASPs drop $20. Intel needs to make the chips more attractive than AMD, in order to gain market share, and even if Intel succeeds, the gains will be small, since Intel already controls such a huge part of the market. Intel can try to cut the ASPs to $10, and this way, market may be able to absorb 300 million chips, up from 200,000 but somehow I don't think Intel shareholders would appreciate it. Another thing to keep in mind, is that based on the very low transistor count / die are vs. performance, P4 needs 2 times the silicon area to keep up with Athlon. So based on the unfortunate P4 design, Intel needs to double capacity just to stay even. I already posted it, unlike most here who consider the huge capex (Intel is projecting) to be a bullish indicator, another way to look at it is that this is the price Intel has to pay to compensate for the sub-optimal P4 design. Looking at the portfolio of processors for the next 2 to 3 years - P4 and Itanium - I can't help but wonder what went wrong. I think the process engineers and the fact that Intel is a gorilla is going to keep Intel from deteriorating rapidly, but everybody at Intel will have to work twice as hard to compensate for the bad design decisions that lead to the current state of P4 and Itanium processors. Joe