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: Dan3 who wrote (141126)	8/8/2001 11:54:54 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, <As Intel outspent AMD 8 to 1, AMD increased its market share from 12% to 22%.> I'll bet the ratio of profits between Intel and AMD is a lot greater than 8:1 over the past several years. Seems like Intel is getting better ROI out of their spending than AMD. <Intel used up a significant part of its value as a company in a crazy crusade to make Rambus Inc. rich. Now it looks like they're getting ready to do it again as they attempt to force all of their customers to socket 478.> Socket 478 is no Rambus. In fact, the form of Socket 478 is smaller and more elegant than Socket 423. The only losers would be those who already bought Socket 423 motherboards, but heck, according to you AMDroids, those haven't been selling too well in the first place! Ah well. Tenchusatsu

To: Dan3 who wrote (141126)	8/9/2001 2:25:12 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "They've outspent AMD almost 8 to 1, but AMD still beat them to copper by well over a year and now AMD looks like it will beat them to SOI by even more. As Intel outspent AMD 8 to 1, AMD increased its market share from 12% to 22%." AMD didn't beat Intel to copper, and the reason is because there was never a race. Intel chose to delay copper to their 130nm process, and this decision has yet to be shown as a bad idea. Likewise, there doesn't seem to be a race for SOI, as Intel has no definite plans to use it in the future. Although I realize you think that it is the greatest thing in the computer world since the integrated circuit, it doesn't mean that it will give AMD any significant advantages over Intel's future processes. If I may summarize the situation, I believe you are trying to prove that Intel is spending more than AMD, while being unable to stop AMD's advances into their markets, thereby suggesting that Intel may as well have flushed the money down the toilet. However, you are using today's results to quantify your correlation based on investments that won't even be realized until much later. You are essentially dismissing Intel's investments before they even have a chance for return. One the things you have conveniently ignored is Intel's 130nm process, which has arrived months before AMD's, and has stopped AMD's mobile plans dead in their tracks. In addition, that same 130nm process will allow Pentium 4 chips by the end of the year that will enable Intel to have a large lead over AMD in desktop performance. You have also forgotten Intel's research in 300mm wafers, which offer 2.5x more die per wafer (over 8" and 180nm), and 30% lower cost per wafer than Intel's current process. 300mm wafer and 130nm manufacturing technologies may enable Intel to have a significant cost advantage over AMD's SOI process, even with the difference in die sizes. Of course, I am willing to give SOI the benefit of the doubt. I even believe that it may allow AMD some competitive advantages in performance and power dissipation. The only difference is that I don't have the optimistic fantasy that any of the aforementioned technologies will make or break the competition. If I am wrong, you can feel free to come back next year and tell me so, but right now your correlation between Intel's spending and AMD's market share amounts to very little. wanna_bmw