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: wanna_bmw who wrote (152646)	12/16/2001 12:20:04 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Now that's what I call a profitable business Amen. That's why I posted that getting too focused on raw silicon costs might not be the best idea. I also think your package and test costs are too high (it's probably more like $10). One additional point on the comparison. When Intel is at 300mm wafers, AMD will be shipping 80mm2 Thoroughbred/Appaloosa parts (same size as Tualatin). Intel claimed they'd initially see only a 0% to 5% cost reduction from the 200 to 300mm transition, but I think they were sandbagging and will do somewhat better than that right off the bat. If you compare your estimated cost for Tualatin (Same size as Athlon) with your estimated cost for Northwood, you get the 40% cost advantage that Sanders was saying AMD expected for next year (even with Intel using 300mm and AMD using 200mm wafers). But, the main thing is, a cost difference of $3+ dollars is pretty much irrelevant when most of the parts sell for $50 to $250. The other interesting thing is trying to allocate "overhead." Just for a starting point, let's say Intel ships 120 million processors next year and AMD ships 40 million. Intel has been running annual Capex of $7 Billion while AMD has been running annual Capex of $1.2 Billion. Intel has R&D costs of $3.6 Billion, while AMD has R&D costs of $0.7 Billion. Intel has administrative costs of $4 Billion while AMD has administrative costs of $0.6 Billion. Without trying to guess what Intel is including as R&D, AMD seems to be using its R&D money more effectively. Bottom line (in millions except final number), per chip direct overhead would be Intel ($7,000 + $3,600 + 4,000)/ 120 = $122 and for AMD ($1,200 + 700 + 600)/40 = $62.50. This is why I keep harping on how critical it is to fully understand and account for Capex, R&D, and admin costs (and how unimportant silicon costs are). It also explains how AMD can lose money while selling for $80 CPUs with a cost of $20, and Intel basically broke even selling $25 parts for $150. Both companies make things other than CPUs, but (unless and until the flash crash ends) neither company is making enough money on non-CPU products to cover overhead costs - so I'm just ignoring those as either costs or revenue. This also shows why AMD is so anxious to keep its units up, and why Intel is so determined to take back the market share it lost. If Intel can drive AMD down to 12.5% market share, AMD's per chip overhead costs will double to match Intel's. Right now, AMD has a pretty significant cost advantage - which has absolutely nothing to do with the costs of making, testing, and packaging the chips themselves. The cost advantage is what allows AMD to survive while it's ASPs are so much lower than Intel's.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (152646)	12/16/2001 3:03:21 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Beamer - Re: "Now that's what I call a profitable business. It's too bad that billions need to go into research, design, manufacturing, and marketing in order to get these numbers." No - it's not too bad. That is what is known as the Barrier To Entry for this business. AMD is the only company that has come close to competing with Intel - and their ability to compete is now diminishing - AGAIN - as technology marches on and Intel leads the parade. No other CPU manufacturer even comes close. Paul

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (152646)	12/17/2001 12:04:58 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

bmw re: Let's also pretend that wafer costs are between $1500 and $2000 ($3000 for 300mm wafer). are not you calculating cost per die per chip rather than cost of a chip? Regards -Albert

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (152646)	12/17/2001 4:18:49 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wanda, "Now that's what I call a profitable business. It's too bad that billions need to go into research, design, manufacturing, and marketing in order to get these numbers." It is not bad nor good, it is the way it is, one determines another. However, I am curious why you did not include Celeons in your list? Your numbers look good in your theory. In reality, in 3Q01 IAG had incurred $4B expenses (5,393-1,328): intc.com Assuming generously about 30M units sold, it gives $135 cost per chip sold. Now, tell me please how a $45 street price per Celeron is profitable for Intel. - Ali