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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (140147)	7/26/2001 12:21:51 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: But what makes you think AMD's marketing department can even get a $100 premium for a 64-bit marketing bullet? I think they can get a $100 premium over what they'd get for a 32-bit Athlon. It may be tough for even for Intel to get much more than $125 for a 32-bit chip next year. It really looks like the days of big prices for any CPU are fading. It started with desktops, is spreading to mobile, and I still don't see why Intel is slashing Xeon prices - but they are. The recent mobile announcements from Intel seem to indicate that there won't be any $3,500 notebooks with $1,000 of that going for the CPU anymore. What would have been a $700 sale for Intel last fall will be a $300 sale this fall. That certainly does block AMD from making any windfall profits from the 1.2GHZ Athlon 4s, but at what cost to Intel? How many people would have paid big bucks for an AMD notebook, anyway? And AMD will still be ecstatic to net $175 for a 1.2GHZ A4 - their revenue requirements and expectations are quite low. The only possibility I see for bringing industry revenues back to any where near what they were last year would be a strong push towards dual processor systems. It would help Intel and it would help AMD by sopping up the huge excess in capacity that has been built up. And, since Microsoft gets twice as much money for the dual processor version of WindowsXP, it would help Microsoft, too. It doesn't seem that more than a handful of buyers are willing to pay the $1,000 extra for speed that they once would (which put $600 in Intel's pockets, instead of the net $200 that even high end processors are heading for. But if you can convince buyers they need 2 processors, at least you can pick up $400 from each box sold. But I've seen no evidence at all that a push for dual processor desktops is underway. C'est la guerre.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (140147)	7/26/2001 10:07:56 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

>And that brings me back to my original question of timeframe. Even if processors with x86-64 made up 30% of the market, it will still take at least two years after that happens before any real software support (i.e. OS AND mainstream apps) gains momentum. Unless, of course, AMD ditches their "Build it and they will come" approach to marketing, but we all know that's highly unlikely.< That is why I am writing to AMD suggesting a few strategic acqusitions/mergers, beginning with SGI. Intel put the screws to AMD royally with their Compaq deal, and AMD needs to wake up and smell the sewage treatment plant. With SGI as a division of AMD, it would be possible for AMD to insure SGI's world class development/production environment is ported to x86-64, and license this environment to vendors such as Gateway and Dell, while expanding SGI's share of the P4/Itanium workstation/server markets. Additionally, AMD could relaunch the Amiga computer using the Silicon Graphics brand. The Amiga could be relaunched in two basic flavors, Alpha/Hammer, with the Alpha processor only based Amiga's going after the set top systems market (multiple DISHPlayer like EchoStar/DirecTV satellite receivers or cable decoder boxes linked to a central desktop Amiga computer). Each desktop Amiga system would accomodate a Hammer based coprocessor card, much like the original Amiga accomodated an 8086 based coprocessor card, and offer similar funtionality.