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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (74550)	3/14/2002 9:33:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Tom's CeBit coverage: tomshardware.com This sentence sounds scary: The first samples* based on the Thoroughbred core and the 0.13-micron process should start shipping at the end of March.* Joe

To: AK2004 who wrote (74550)	3/14/2002 10:21:01 PM
From: SteveC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Why doesn't Intel just raise prices? It will lose some marketshare to AMD, but gain substantially more in revenue for 2002. With only two players in the market, and one dominant, Intel can easily manipulate the price of chips up or down. If it thought it could slowly suffocate AMD, it was wrong. Intel ought to take the money and run.

To: AK2004 who wrote (74550)	3/14/2002 10:43:15 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

albert: "hate to sound overly pessimistic about intel but if barrett would not get his act together we might see another enron here. Intel burns cash at incredible rate to conduct price war against virtually one fab soon - fab 30. They brought in (2B + depreciation) in cash and spent 7.5B in capex. I would guess that with stock option that would be net cash reduction ~ 5B. And as PE like to say 'and that is with "B"'. Add eso and few other things and intel maybe considering issuing bonds to cover red." I certainly can't refute any of the foregoing...As mentioned previously, INTC revs in FY01 are flat with those of FY98 and net income in FY01 is a not insignificant $5 billion lower than in FY98...How many additional fabs has INTC added since FY98 and yet revenues are flat??? "that sounds scary" Indeed it does!!!