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: wanna_bmw who wrote (141261)	8/11/2001 12:52:42 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear I am too lazy Wanna_bmw: Go back a few posts around the Intel Q2 CC three weeks ago (can't you do something as simple as that). There were big arguments and debates whether Intel had 26 million, 26.5 million or 27 million in CPU unit sales in Q2. In Q1, the number used by many was 25 to 26 million most towards the high end of that. If you are not willing to go back to those posts, do not complain about my numbers. Analysts, the posters around here and industry commentators have to figure these numbers out and given that these numbers make sense over time, they are probably quite good. If you have more definitive numbers please post them and from where you got them. Otherwise, quit complaining and accept them. I used the high side as that was Intel's best face on the subject. If it was less, then they were not telling the whole truth in their Q2 CC or in their quarterly report. Don't you hate companies that mislead you (as well as most others)? Now get off your duff and do some calculations. I assume you can find Intel's Q2 report. If you can't do that, you have really no business arguing at all. As to where I got the P4 ramp stuff, it was from remarks by an Intel insider on the planned ramp confirmed by some numbers during Intel CCs both mid terms and quarterly ones. If you went back to some posts on this very thread and on the Moderated AMD one, you would see the many statements by others about Intel wanting and planning to sell 4 million P4 units in Q2. An exponential ramp gets you to 8 million units (the one stated earlier by Intel before the troubles in selling them became apparent) and a linear ramp gets you to 6 million units. Can Intel do it faster? Yes, they can but a surge in demand is required because it takes Intel 3 months of prior warning to speed up production (wafer starts to finished CPUs ready for shipment). This is well known by all here (many debates note this fact to newbies and those who seem to forget the delays inherent in semi manufacturing). Since the surge has not happened yet and that planned surge did not occur, it is most likely that Intel has leveled production off somewhat to reduce the inventory increases that occurred. The hope is that any surge in demand will not increase too fast to burn off all inventory before three months are up (customers are much more willing to switch than wait). A shortage would benefit AMD greatly because they usually come with ASP increases and unit increases for all and ill will to the one who is short (as you know this has happened to Intel a few times in the last three years). This also makes frequent CPU speed bin increases hated by OEMs because, if a SKU becomes a hot seller, the CPU manufacturer boosts production immediately, but there is a three month delay, the CPU first goes on allocation, switching away then occurs and when the CPU speed finally becomes available, demand has slackened off and adding insult to injury, a new speed bin drops demand for all of the SKU and the OEM is left holding the bag. This is also a great reason why CPUs are downbinned frequently. As to your other conclusions, you did not do the work in looking back did you? You are very lazy. Or are you calling everyone here a liar? If 27 million is not the right number (Both Mercury and Gantner estimate Q2 WW CPU sales at 34.5 and 34 million respectively and taking out AMDs number at 7.7 million (they stated that CPU unit sales were a record in their Q2 CC and the number was obvious from their other remarks (self consistency between all sources is a very good indicator of correctness) and thus, most here do not complain of that number) you get 26.8 and 26.3 million giving none to Transmeta or Via), then Intel lied about its increase in CPU unit sales and you have even less leg to stand on about "Intel wouldn't do such a thing" proofs. Now all I know is that you are 1) lazy, 2) have even less proof about your statements, 3) can't give alternate numbers and 4) just do not like the numbers being against your view. The last simply shows your dislike of the current situation. Well join the club. Pete