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: Petz who wrote (148350)	11/15/2001 7:22:47 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Petz, Re: "You said, Show me where Intel says this. Obviously non-channel sales, i.e., direct sales were reduced in Q3 vs. Q2, since overall CPU sales were up less than 5% and channel sales were up 25%." Thanks. Now can you show me where Intel says that overall CPU sales were up less than 5%? That would of course complete the logic to your conclusion, and this missing piece of information is really where I have the most trouble believing. To make my point, consider that in Q3, Intel's IAG group made $5.4 billion in revenue and $1.3 billion of that was income. In Q2 IAG made $5.1 billion in revenue and had $1.5 billion in income. That's basically $4.1 billion in expenses during Q3 and $3.6 billion in expenses during Q2. Assuming minimal cost reductions, that's a 14% increase in production. Since 14% involves all of IAG, the CPU portion may be larger. Since the 25% number that Intel mentions is in volumes shipped, that includes CPUs produced that quarter, and inventories that they had from previous quarters (they did say they reduced inventories). Essentially, Intel could have increased channel output by 25%, and still increased direct sales, too. Re: "we are hearing stories of channel customers being told that some P4 chips can only be obtained directly from Intel. It couldn't come at a better time for AMD, because white-boxers and 2-3 Tier mail order/internet vendors will be only too happy to market an Athlon XP 1900+ as being equivalent to at least a 1900 MHz P4." You may be correct, but how much does this buy AMD, and how much will Intel be growing at the same time? wbmw

To: Petz who wrote (148350)	11/15/2001 7:27:05 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Ban Ban Petz - YOu sound so hollow and phony - take it back to your Thought Control Banny Mani thread. Dell is eating everybody's lunch - and Dell don't sell no stinkin' AThWipers !

To: Petz who wrote (148350)	11/16/2001 12:17:46 AM
From: SisterMaryElephant	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John, <Guess what? It won't work again in Q4, as we are hearing stories of channel customers being told that some P4 chips can only be obtained directly from Intel. It couldn't come at a better time for AMD, because white-boxers and 2-3 Tier mail order/internet vendors will be only too happy to market an Athlon XP 1900+ as being equivalent to at least a 1900 MHz P4. Since their customers want 1800+ or more performance, they will sell it to them. From AMD.> There is one problem with your scenario. There may not be any supply of high end XP's to sell (for whatever reason). According to anecdotal evidence from your very own AMD "sources", (not to mention Intel threaders), Message 16660977 Message 16662296 Message 16660843 Message 16598866 Message 16586191 and especially this post, Message 16661087 We are not even half way through the quarter and AMD does not have enough of what their customers want! Not good. They can slap a $1000 price tag on them and it does them no good, they may not be available. That means the record CPU shipments AMD promised will consist of very low ASP products. Combined with terrible flash sales, it is no wonder they will have a loss. BTW, IMO, they must be having production problems obtaining sufficient number of high "model" hertz parts. That's my guess. SK