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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Hull who wrote (146608)11/1/2001 12:34:01 PM
From: AK2004  Respond to of 186894
 
John
re: Not to mention the fact that you like to throw in a few additional, off topic, controversial items
hope you did not mind too much
re: where did the 2 year
50mil/rate is not going to be achieved until end of '02 and hence would not really be an issue until '03 (speculation on my part)
re: there were not much left for amd with intel's new fabs where did I say this?
Message 16589645
I did not phrase it accurately, I admit
re: "double standards" there are no double standards here as far as I'm concerned.
well, you do not address overcapacity at intel, why is it in the best interests of intel shareholders to bring intel to large (IMHO) overcapacity. You did address though amd's potential overcapacity.
re: Intel suffers to, but has more wherewithal to endure the cycle
that is granted but Dan was trying to make a point about intel's overcapacity rather than tough economic conditions. You have to admit that unless intel is not saying something it should have overcapacity for any condition including explosive expansion which is not likely to occur soon.

Re: rambus
I did say that that point is minor but it does illustrate some inconsistency which may be viewed as double standards <=> ddr is not a good solution when amd is using it but a great one when intel gets to it

The main point is still overcapacity.

Regards
-Albert

ps sorry for my English though, I do appreciate the fact that it takes some effort to read my posts



To: John Hull who wrote (146608)11/1/2001 2:34:50 PM
From: AK2004  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
John
off topic and vary naive question, sorry:
bmw postulated that the cost reduction of moving to .13um is less than expected (by analysts) because intel migrated to a larger chip (p4 vs pIII). There is a lot of way of calculating cost reduction:
1) using cost per average chip (bmw's assumption)
2) using cost of production of similar chips in which case size would not matter
When intel said 25% cost reduction which method was implied?
Best Regards
-Albert