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 (142932)	9/6/2001 11:42:39 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

First, stop making apples to oranges comparisons like the cost of producing one chip vs the price that a company charges for another. There is absolutely no point in arguing something like that, since no correlation can be made from such a comparison. . Second, you have the cache size wrong for McKinley, which shows that you haven't done your research. Third, is your estimate based on cost or price? You really don't get it. IBM's cost for the CPUs is what it costs them to make them. What they charge for the CPU is pure marketing and will depend on a lot of factors. Other OEMs cost for the CPUs is what Intel charges them for the CPUs. So, until Intel starts making boxes themselves or drops their server CPU prices drastically, it is a very relevant comparison. It is a direct comparison between IBM's cost of the CPU part of a system to another OEMs cost for the same. It will to a degree determine the ultimate margin on the system. The point is that IBM has a lot of room to drop system prices of high end multi CPU systems based on their cost of the processors. Given Intel's high pricing of server CPUs, the cost advantage for 8/16/32 way systems could be considerable. Get the concept?? I could care less what size L2 McKinley has. I made the point that it is a much more relevant comparison than Itanium since die size would be more similar, (if you wanted to make a comparison between processor costs to the two manufacturers. I could not be more clear in my post. My estimates of less than $2500 was for the cost to IBM of producing a complete 4 chip 8 core module. In fact, that was Microprocessor Reports estimate which if you assume any reasonable yield is obviously too high. You have shown NOTHING from your end which refutes anything I've said and your earlier claims of smaller Power4 volumes than Power3 volumes is ludicrous. Finally, you still never indicted just what size the humongous POWER3 chip is. THE WATSONYOUTH