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: Dan3 who wrote (146481)	10/31/2001 3:33:12 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, yet again you amaze me with your ability to take a bad assumption heap more bad assumptions on top of it... and then come to ridiculous conclusions to spin a scenario laughably out of touch with reality... Intel's projection for the savings from moving to .13 next year will be 5%. I found that surprising (I think we all were expecting more). That 25% number you quoted was for moving to 300mm wafers in 2003. I wasn't... but then again, any new manufacturing process is expensive in it's first year or two. Costs don't really start coming down until the 2nd or 3rd year. Cost per wafer on 0.18 micron is undoubtedly much less than it was in 1999. AMD will be able to supply 50 million processors next year with a single FAB that is small by Intel standards. If I've read correctly, indicated that Dresden was already at 5K WS/Week and moving to 7K WS/Week. Granted Intel has a few "megafabs" with over 10K WS/Week capacity, but Intel also has many smaller fabs. F20 I don't think ever even ran 5K WS/Week in the 0.18 micron days simply because development was eating up most of the wafer starts. D2 is always low volume (lower than dresden). F17 isn't a huge facility either. To assume a 10K WS/Week start level for all Intel fabs is just plain wrong. Therefore all of your analysis and conclusions from that point forward fall to the level of absurdity...

To: Dan3 who wrote (146481)	10/31/2001 3:56:52 PM
From: John Hull	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Have you noticed that AMD only makes money in times of excess processor demand? That is, they profit when Intel undercalls the end demand for processors and OEMs turn to AMD to fill demand that Intel can't. Conversely, they have tended to lose large amounts of money in times of excess supply. Given the large capital investment by Intel this year and the soft demand environment, I'd say it may be some time before a truly constrained environment in aggregate returns. Granted, Intel suffers too, but Intel has more wherewithal to endure the cycle. Who cares how many CPUs AMD can build? How many can they sell? They have frequently been able to build more than they could sell. 486, K5, K6, K7...... We've been here before. re:"Total processor demand this year looks like it's coming in around 140 million parts. If it goes up by 15% (an estimate that's looking more and more optimistic each day), Intel will need to supply 115 million processors (to support a total demand of 165 million)." Gee, that's nice of you to let Intel get the remainder after AMD has sold out its capacity. I think Transmeta can build a few million parts too - should that come out of the Intel number? Cyrix stuff is still kicking around in Via somewhere isn't it - do they get any of Intel's portion? You can probably follow this logic to Intel not selling much of anything except Flash next year. Oooops, I guess we have to let AMD get their fill first in that market too since they have capacity.... regards, jh