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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (40479)	5/18/2001 6:16:55 PM
From: stribe30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench - since Paul does nothing but revert to calling people who find potential faults in Intel's products as nothing more then AMD flunkies.. I wondered what your opinion..- er.. make that opinion and technical analysis- was of the Bert Mcomas article at Inquest about P-4 clock throttling Now.. admittedly.. you might not want to say certain things.. no need to break company secrets... but I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. The general opinion at the hardware sites is that Intel isnt being very truthful/ethical if this clock throttling is true.. but others dismiss the study an still others say more evidence/study is needed...

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (40479)	5/18/2001 7:02:53 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

$30 would be less than the marginal cost to make one CPU. I don't think that's the case, or else Intel would be losing money. Could you detail your rational for this conclusion? THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (40479)	5/18/2001 8:56:39 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"$30 would be less than the marginal cost to make one CPU. I don't think that's the case, or else Intel would be losing money." To figure actual cost you have to know exactly what expenses Intel is figuring in. I do not. I gather my information based on die size, die per wafer, yield and cost of wafer, testing loss and charges. Most of this I have gleaned from articles and off this BB from the likes of Elmer and processists like Yousef. I recall Elmer saying th cost of a P3 Coppermine would be less than $30 by the time MS started shipping to Microsofts builder. When Intel made the deal with Microsoft, they had to project costs out a year and a half. A lot can change in a year and a half...sometimes costs can go down, most surprises are on the upside. The X-box will sell for $299 retail with a pretty fancy graphics engine. I don't think there is any way that MS could have the X-box retail for $299 and be paying much more than $30 a chip. Shoot, they are throwing in a DVD drive and a 8.4 gig HD... Those three items are likely $80 to $100 bucks right there. 30 chip -30 HD -20 DVD...maybe more. Then there is the motherboard...maybe 30-50 for that if you add in the graphics engine. Then you have case, PS, RAM, console. Maybe $150 plus in parts...not counting assembly, packaging and testing. Not much left of expensive Intel ships...considering the chip that runs a playstation 2 probably costs what? $10-$20? Jim