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 (141989)	8/19/2001 11:58:06 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

BMW, it's pretty telling to me how TWY chose to focus on your little inaccuracy instead of Dan's whoppers. It's obvious he holds you to a much higher standard than Dan, which you could probably take as a compliment. Tenchusatsu

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (141989)	8/20/2001 12:36:11 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: He was trying to prove... that Intel's notched gate idea was a complete failure. At the very least, notched gates enabled the Pentium III to reach much higher clock speeds. I was trying to show that Intel stretched its .18 process - successfully, following some problems - and that the constant chorus of Elmer and Engel harmonizing with Yousef that AMD had "used up" any benefit from moving to .13 (while Intel had not) was missing the point that Intel's own notched gate process extended its own .18 to some point between a "classic" .18 and what their .13 could be expected to achieve. Dan has said that Intel has made a huge mistake by not implementing copper interconnects in their .18u process Not necessarily, but the Elmer/Yousef/Engel chorus that AMD's implementation was a waste of time - at the same time they claimed AMD's process is already effectively providing .13 performance was rather annoying. Pick one or the other. Either AMD's copper process let it get an extra generation of performance out of .18 or AMD will get a big benefit simply from moving to .13 in about 6 months - you can't have it both ways. that Intel is about to make a huge mistake by not implementing SOI I think an argument can be made for that conclusion, and I've tried to present that argument. that Intel is bleeding red by losing out on their liquid assets You've seen the balance sheets - argue with their auditors, not with me. that they will be bleeding red in their Q3 earnings, that they will continue to bleed red as AMD ramps up their future products I've made a case for that supposition, feel free to argue that I'm wrong (I may well be). that they will fall to AMD's superiority in the business sector I don't think I've posted that - they barely have a presence in the business sector, much less "superiority." He says that Intel will continue to fall in ASPs, and that their business strategy does not support falling ASPs, while AMD's does AMD's business plan expects lower ASPs than Intel's does. So far, unfortunately(in my eyes), both plans have been reasonable for each company. He believes that AMD's marketing will turn around, that they will begin labeling their products based on another arbitrary measurement instead of megahertz I think they should do so, but have no faith whatsoever that they will do so. I find it frustrating that with the stroke of a pen AMD's processors, which are equal to or superior to Intel's in performance, could have an appropriate placement in the market. But I despair of AMD's marketing ever making such a move, obvious though such a move appears to be, to me. He claims that AMD will continue to reduce costs due to higher demand What? When? Why does demand reduce costs? that AMD will soon release products that will put them above and beyond anything Intel has to offer, that their production will increase I think the hammers are a brilliant, and obvious, next processor design. AMD has to produce it, but it makes more sense than Intel's roadmap. Both companies will increase production, it's the nature of this business and that AMD's earnings losses are temporary, while Intel's aren't Neither company has posted losses for a number of quarters, but you've stated my expectations for the future. he continues to restate Intel's relationship with Rambus as testament that Intel can no longer make good standards Yep. And you've never presented a coherent argument against that conclusion. Almost anything he has to say puts Intel down in some way I'm a buyer, user, and admirer of computers in general. When AMD and Intel compete, I get to buy great computers at reasonable prices - a market economy in action. When Intel manages to squeeze competition out of the marketplace by intimidating OEMs and misrepresenting the performance and reliability of its products relative to its competitors' products, I'm stuck with overpriced junk - the result of the Intel/marxist approach to an economy's providing goods. So I'm a pretty outspoken booster of AMD. he continues to cherry pick benchmarks to show the Pentium 4 as a dog compared to the Athlon. Hey, I can't help it if P4 is good on canned quake demos and microsoft media encoder and bad on the remaining installed base of 5 million programs. :-) he continues to monitor prices on pricewatch, systems at Best Buy and other retail stores Hey, that's a lot of work and good data, if you don't want to know what's being advertised just ignore it. Dan claims to be an expert in just about every field as he tries to argue with every single forum member about how he knows best. I do? Sorry if I come across that way - but try dealing with Engel for 2 years and you'll see just how bad it can get. -> your complaints to TWY There used to be 2 people who really knew processor production on these threads and were willing to clue in the rest of us. Process Boy and The Watson Youth. Process Boy had to stop posting because he received a promotion at Intel and felt it was no longer appropriate for him to post here. TWY is the only one we have left who really knows his stuff and is willing to help the rest of us out regularly. (there are occasional posts from a few others, but they don't regularly support the thread). Dump on me if you need to but please don't try to chase TWY away - we all need him. He's helped me out when I made mistakes before, and when corrected I say thanks and shut up. I'd suggest you do the same.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (141989)	8/20/2001 1:03:51 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Almost anything he has to say puts Intel down in some way. And almost everything you say elevates Intel in some way. From my perspective, what's the difference? Sure...Dan is a fudster. He is just more open about it. My disagreements with Dan go way back. But you are no less one. By you countering every single one of his posts in decidedly pro Intel fashion, you are no different than him. My take is that if such an exchange (like between you and Dan) can go on for days/weeks on end, without any agreement on any point, then BOTH posters are pure fudsters. Dan will wear you out just as he has Tenchusatsu. So, unless you are an Intel plant, you are wasting your time trying to counter all his points. For once, I'd like to hear some agreement between adversaries. Surely neither company has done everything right in the past two years. I bet even some outright mistakes were made by both sides. But, to listen to you and Dan..... Also, I sense in your posts that somehow, you think your interpretation of data/events/etc. are somehow more valid (more correct) than others. Not surprisingly, you accuse Dan of the same things. You should listen to Alex. I think he said it very well."any information is considered to have a positive value even if it is incorrect. Almost all if not all, conclusions are made on expectations that are formed from semi-concrete, at best, data. All information is biased one way or another - that is the fact of life." I think Alex knows what he doesn't know. I don't think you do. As for your error on process technology, I strung you out to prove a point. Your conclusion based on what YOU believed to be "correct" data was wrong even though you had read the two presentations and had the "correct" data right in front of you. I've pointed out several times all the FUD that is spread on these threads regarding process issues. It changes nothing. The FUD continues. To attempt to counter every thing that I think can not be substantiated would force me to spend as much time on these threads as say a Dan or a wanna_bmw. Nope....they can have it. THE WATSONYOUTH