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: Dave who wrote (149231)	11/23/2001 9:24:24 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 186894

Dave, Well, the Athlon is more than an equal to the P-4, all AMD needs is to speed it up a bit and get rid of the funny numbers game. As to vertical integration, it is the next logicaal step with the CPU makers doing their own graphics chip or making deals with graphic chip makers. With the thicker of IP aroung the graphics chips it looks like the cpu boys will have to make deals. If deals cannot be made then buyouts to get the full cost savings of verticality will ensue. Already there are rumors about ATI being bought by some large player some day soon, but it might not happen. The media GX failed because stand alone graphics cards were getting better faster than Cyrix could make their embedded chip set work. In addition their CPU was lame and down they went. If you get the capability of the top graphic cards as well and the N/S bridge into a 2 chip set (CPU w/part of the bridges) and graphics with the rest. As we go down in feature size this get doable more easily and there is less heat so it can go faster. Now there may be strong tech reasons for part of this to stay outside of the chipset, drive fanout as we get down in feature size may be a problem and we may not be able to drive the bus from the small transistors , so some buffer/driver may be needed. This may be on the same die as a larger capacity parT or as a glue part?? Bill

To: Dave who wrote (149231)	11/23/2001 1:01:27 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: but this idea failed. It could have been any number of reasons, but AMD may want to consider this, instead of competing with Intel head to head. AMD tried a limited market strategy 3 years ago when it focused on the entry level market / mid-range market, and limited itself to no more than 30% of the total market (and at the low end of the market, that represents about 10% of revenues). Intel's response was to create the Celeron line, and to dump processors at very low prices into the limited segments AMD was selling to. So AMD really has no choice but to go after Intel. Fortunately for AMD, Intel's great engineers are undercut by Intel's arrogant and ignorant top executive level. Between Rambus, the bizarre IA-64 strategy (they just walked away from their greatest asset, their installed base, and are leaving it to AMD!), being late to copper, and failing to develop SOI, AMD now has a fair chance at displacing Intel as the number one CPU producer, and an excellent chance of becoming Intel's peer in all sectors at all price point, and at all profit levels. Since AMD's corporate overhead and general cost structure is lower than Intel's, AMD will most likely be making greater profits than Intel within 2 years, while spreading those profits over only 316 million shares. Intel will be making lower profits and having to spread those profits over 6,730 million shares - so that AMD's per share profits will easily be 30 times those of Intel.