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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (142937)	9/6/2001 12:08:23 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: So, until Intel starts making boxes themselves... And it's the fear of that happening that may result in HP/Compaq and even Dell adopting Sledgehammer if Alpha, PA Risc, etc. really do go away. If OEMs have no alternative to Intel, there is nothing to stop Intel from selling direct - they wouldn't lose any OEM sales, since the OEMs would nowhere else to go. And, as you pointed out, Intel would have a huge advantage over Dell and Compaq in terms of their costs. Most PCs are built in Taiwan by subcontractors, anyway. Why should Intel bother with the middleman? Intel has the brand recognition, and already has a strong retail channel presence with their cameras, MP3 players, etc. Why not just finish the transition from parts maker to vertically integrated seller?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (142937)	9/6/2001 12:18:58 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

TWY, Re: "You really don't get it. IBM's cost for the CPUs is what it costs them to make them... Other OEMs cost for the CPUs is what Intel charges them for the CPUs... It will to a degree determine the ultimate margin on the system... Given Intel's high pricing of server CPUs, the cost advantage for 8/16/32 way systems could be considerable. Get the concept??" No, you just don't get it. IBM pays the Intel premium on their CPUs so that they don't have to design an x86 CPU of their own. The Xeon line of processors fills IBM's largest market segment, and it saves them the time and cost of researching and developing their own comparable CPU line. Xeon saves IBM money in the long run, so it's irrelevant if the their cost to buy a Xeon CPU exceeds the cost to manufacture their own. If it didn't balance out in the long run, then IBM would be making their own x86 CPU line. Get the concept??? "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." So you're already assuming reasonable yield? On a processor that hasn't even launched yet that is far more aggressive in features and die size than any of IBM's other processor lines? "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." And you've shown nothing, except for a bad attitude and poor manners to refute my claims. I've asked, yet you still dodge around the issue. I've only claimed that Power4 won't have the volumes of Power3 to begin with (as I later corrected myself), and I only said that to prove that it wouldn't be serious competition to Itanium. You didn't think that latter point was worth arguing, so why even continue your pointless conversation? wanna_bmw

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (142937)	9/6/2001 1:54:44 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

TWY, <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.> This same argument could have been applied to IBM's current line of custom servers and workstations. Guess what? They're still more expensive than Intel-based solutions, even with the high premium Intel gets on each CPU. If IBM had to charge the same prices for their proprietary solutions as they (and their competitors) do for Intel-based SHV solutions, they will lose money, period. In other words, BMW is right. You are indeed making an apples-to-oranges comparison. <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.> Like I said before, the cost of building an entire POWER4 MCM is largely dominated by the exotic packaging. <Do you really think IBM will exclude their fastest design from the largest (1way/2way) segment of the server business??> Yes, I do, unless you have sources that suggest otherwise. Tenchusatsu