SI
SI
discoversearch

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: wanna_bmw who wrote (51014)8/14/2001 5:47:11 AM
From: AK2004Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
wanna_bmw
it would be no brainer a while back as well but they did not do it, why? They have more than enough capacity.....
Regards
-Albert



To: wanna_bmw who wrote (51014)8/14/2001 8:44:00 AM
From: Charles GrybaRespond to of 275872
 
I am more concerned about the long term effects of this rapid Mhz build-up. I am not an Intel Investor but if they practically give away 1.8-2+ Ghz P4 now they may push back the real recovery in CPU upgrading and actually prolong the cheap-cpu buying mentality that's setting in and maybe even make it permanent so that they will never again be able to sell a consumer cpu for a lot of money. ( Unless of course AMD retires from the business which is highly unlikely ).

Constantine



To: wanna_bmw who wrote (51014)8/14/2001 1:02:34 PM
From: Milan ShahRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Given that it costs Intel the same amount of money to run, say, 10,000 Pentium III wafers as it costs to run 10,000 Pentium 4 wafers

This is a fundamental flaw in your assumption - in reality, it costs Intel almost twice as much to run 10K units of P4 vs 10K units of P3. P4 is twice the die size of P3.

So the question is more like should we manufacture 10K P3 with ASPs in the 100-180 range, or 5K in the 130-550 range. The math would actually favor the P3, but the competitive landscape requires the latter.

Milan