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: dale_laroy who wrote (140273)	7/27/2001 1:20:27 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

Dale, the original discussion was about Itanium, and what additional revenue it might bring in to Intel when it gets rolling (McKinley, etc.). It then went to the CPU cost portion relative to all other server parts for Xeon, or Alpha based servers, because they are the closest things to what Itanium might become, and those systems can be costed right now. Pete brought it down to Celeron based cheapie stuff, which is just remotely related to the bigger servers the whole thing started about. Basically took it from a Mercedes Benz type product down to a Chevette. No comparison. Wait, I get it, the Chevette, if it were a server, would, no could, use an AMD chip. Then, it might be free the way AMD's server program has been going since it started. Then, the CPU portion would be 0.00%. Bada bing. Tony

To: dale_laroy who wrote (140273)	7/27/2001 2:43:05 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

dale_leroy, <<<Boy are you off target here. Dan's argument is for CPU's to average 2% to 0.2% of cost across all server markets, including those using Celeron processors. Obviously, when Xeon processors are used, the processor would contribute significantly more than 2% to the component cost of the server.>>> I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. My contention is that the 2% to .2% average, any way you cut it, is ridiculous. To prove my point, the 6M units of Xeon chips with an ASP of $1200 have to be included in any averages. Therefore, how many units of Athlon's (or Athlon competitors) with an ASP of $10 would you have to sell to bring the average down to give you a CPU average of 2% to .2%. If you sold out AMD production (Jerry #) of processors (30M) of any kind at an ASP of $10 (to give you a fair chance), that would give you a total cpu value of $7.5B ($300M AMD and $7.2B Xeon). Your best case scenario at 2% would give you a $375B server market. The worst case at .2% would give you $3.75 Trillion server market. Obviously, the 2% or .2% average is ridiculous. Now, just what is it that you are trying to tell me? Mary