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: AK2004 who wrote (146624)	11/1/2001 2:49:23 PM
From: John Hull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Albert, sorry I am unable to definitively answer that question for you. why don't you send an e-mail to Doug Lusk, current IR Director and ask - I'm sure he would hunt down the answer for you. doug.lusk@intel.com jh

To: AK2004 who wrote (146624)	11/1/2001 3:16:40 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

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? Albert, I touched on this topic yesterday at some length after reading the articles you sent me: Message 16588696