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: Dan3 who wrote (158974)	2/17/2002 11:53:45 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

As usual, you fail to post the positive Intel news from that article: WHILE SOME 2.40GHz Pentium 4 processors seem to have already started tipping up in Japan , system integrators and the distribution channel will have to wait until the second quarter this year before they get their mitts on the boxed version. You say: The progression in P4 speeds of 2GHZ last quarter, 2.2 this quarter, 2.4 next quarter, but only 2.5 for Q3 many indicate some near term scaling issues for P4. This has been Intel's roadmap for a while now also. 2.5, no, 2.5THREE: That's all Intel needs in Q3 because they know that what AMD has coming and that's all Intel needs to keep the performance crown. How's that sound? Throw that droid logic goodie back at you.

To: Dan3 who wrote (158974)	2/17/2002 1:31:41 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

MAD lost lots of money last quarter, the quarter before that one and predicts a LOSS this quarter. If you're really a MAD investor, why do you waste your time making up hallucinations about Intel financials? Shouldn't you worry more about MAD losses and continual product slippages?

To: Dan3 who wrote (158974)	2/17/2002 5:13:56 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "In summary, .13 is awfully important to Intel" Excuse me, but no one has yet to argue this point. .13u manufacturing, just like a timely introduction to .09u manufacturing in 2003, will be vitally important to Intel, both competitively, and in order to cut costs on future products. But no one has argued otherwise, so why do you spend a full page on driving that point? The original argument was whether Intel would lose money if they introduced .09u manufacturing early, but that's purely nonsense, since they could easily use their older processes to build parts years into the future, thus getting their full return on each process generation. Either you agree or disagree with this, but your response doesn't seem to be relevant. Nor is it very accurate with the things you do get into detail with, but I won't waste time splitting hairs over that. wbmw