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: wanna_bmw who wrote (78585)	4/27/2002 10:11:19 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Intel has the "low cost" model and economies of scale. They can outdesign, outmanufacture, and outsell any of the RISC competitors on the market, so that's why it only makes sense to position Itanium 2 Bull. Intel is still way behind Alpha, which basically had its plug pulled a year ago. Intel is awful at managing design teams. What Intel can do is abuse its monopoly to tax business desktop users which lets it cross subsidize its high end servers. Intel is also good at extorting cooperation from OEMs that must stay on Intel's good side or be punished with "shortages" of "allocated" parts, higher pricing, and denial of needed design information.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (78585)	4/28/2002 1:04:14 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Bmw Re..."Relatively speaking" with regards to RISC, Intel has the "low cost" model and economies of scale. They can outdesign, outmanufacture, and outsell any of the RISC competitors on the market, so that's why it only makes sense to position Itanium 2 against these competitors. <<<<<<<< While dIntel has shown it can out manufacture all of the risc competitors, Intel hasn't yet shown the ability to out design or out sell IBM or Sun in the big iron arena. Yes it makes sense, except Intels execution has been poor in the design so far or Itanium. The decision to drop both risc and x86 and go with a whole new architecture, which was suppose to avoid the shortcomings of both didn't happen. You can't expect IA-64 to compete in cost right away. It could take years.<<<<<<< But that is IA-64's main problem. The only justification for going with IA-64 now seems to be it supposed cost advantage. But if you add in the cost of new software with the cost of the chip, the others look much better on a price/performance basis. Itanium needs to either blow away the competition in performance or costs, in order for a buyer to absorb the software costs. But with the rumors of Yamhill, no one wants to buy a architecture even Intel doesn't seem to have faith in anymore.