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: Win Smith who wrote (135433)	5/18/2001 2:01:23 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Win Smith, It's all a joke, really. Yup, those delays can be seen as funny - but you know the follow on designs won't suffer the same delays. I especially thought this line was funny: Ironically, Merced is slipping so far behind schedule, that now it is only one year after Merced ships the follow-on (called McKinley) should ship, and double performance.

To: Win Smith who wrote (135433)	5/18/2001 2:37:54 PM
From: maui_dude	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Win, Re : "So there you go. It's not a slip. And none of these sources could have possibly gotten the allegedly made up 1997 date from Intel." I certainly can't deny that all these sources quoted 1997 as the Merced was originally scheduled to tape out. But I still dont any press release or any quotes from Intel executive talking about 1997 Production release of Merced. However, I remember a lot of Intel marketing/PR about Merced samples to be release in mid 1998 and production a ew quarters later. Another way to look at it is this : if merced was to go into production in mid 1997, then the tapeout has to be in mid 1996. If you assume atleast 2 years of intense effort before tapeout and a fully staffed team, you should have about 200-300 people team in mid 1994. Do you think that happened ? Maui.