SI
SI
discoversearch

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: pgerassi who wrote (75393)3/22/2002 11:26:49 PM
From: Joe NYCRespond to of 275872
 
Pete,

Good post.

Joe



To: pgerassi who wrote (75393)3/23/2002 12:19:12 AM
From: milo_moraiRespond to of 275872
 
Touche'



To: pgerassi who wrote (75393)3/23/2002 12:26:03 AM
From: hmalyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Pete Re...At $7.5 billion every year for capex, the minimum cost for 1 million a year of wafer production is $7500 a wafer without including variable costs. <<<<<<

That is not true. While Intel spent 7.5 bil. last yr., Intels average expenditure on Capex might be 4.5 bil. Even that would be overstating the costs, because the land and fabs and machinery could be sold. The actual cost of Capex is the depreciation costs of the machinery, and buildings, and interest costs.

And when the market shrinks, the gap between Intel's and AMD's cost per CPU widens.<<<<<<

That would be true only if the market share for both stayed the same.

<<<<<<<If the market only paid $100 per CPU, AMD would make money and Intel would lose it by the billions.<<<<<<

That would likely be true, but Intel has a lot more in advertising cost/cpu and losses in other divisions; such that Intel could be competitive on production costs. While advertiseng costs a lot of money, that advertising allows Intel to get more/ cpu and keep higher market share. In addition, some of the higher ASPS is due to higher priced chips, such as all of those expensive Itaniums, and Xeons.