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: Ali Chen who wrote (154446)	1/9/2002 1:14:57 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Alice, Re: "Can you spell production problems now? Even Elmer estimated yields of 0.18 P4 at about 35% due to standard defect density but large die size. The 35% must clearly blow minds of hairly-pointed managers who apparently planned for no less than 80%." Are you so scared about AMD's future that you have to come up with lies like this? Stupidity must be running rampant with you these days, since you mention "standard" defect densities, but in the same sentence you say that Intel management planned for something very different. You must be claiming that Intel process engineers don't know about standard defect densities (as if a screwed up screwdriver junky like yourself knows better). You're as bad as Dan3 - only a lot funnier! wbmw

To: Ali Chen who wrote (154446)	1/9/2002 1:40:54 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Li'l Screwdriver - Re:"Clearly Intel failed to supply expected volumes. This is a documented fact," Show the documents. Or admit that you are a lying scumbag.

To: Ali Chen who wrote (154446)	1/9/2002 7:16:37 PM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Weak thinking. Who the heck are analysts and what kind of information do they have? You Intelopers treat them like dirt when they call for bad things at Intel, but now suddenly they become a good indicator... Can we have some consistency over here please? ---I guess we'll know who's right in about 1 week. On the other hand, OEMs have agreements and contracts with Intel, and plans for quantities accordingly. Clearly Intel failed to supply expected volumes. This is a documented fact, and how could anyone try to dismiss it quoting wishful estimates of financial analysts is beyond any imagination. ---Or, on the other hand, OEM's could have ordered as they normally do, based on a future delivery date. They adjusted their orders and lines for the slowdown, and then the turn around came. They ran back to intel and said give me more right now, which is now unavailable. Clearly intel failed to supply adjusted expectations. Of course no OEM's would admit they underestimated. Far easier to blame the supplier. That's also an explanation, but of course that reason is not as much fun to Droids, as imagining intel has problems. Can you spell production problems now? Even Elmer estimated yields of 0.18 P4 at about 35% due to standard defect density but large die size. The 35% must clearly blow minds of hairly-pointed managers who apparently planned for no less than 80%. - Ali ---Har Har Hardee Har Har. If Elmer said that, Elmers wrong. Elmers not a Semiconductor Process Engineer. And if 80% was all that was expected, then those managers are also wrong. ---But I don't expect any of this to change your mind. And ya know what? I just decided that I don't care what you believe. Even better..... Please continue to spread your FUD..... Especially on that other thread. :-) Semi