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: Road Walker who wrote (169717)	8/21/2002 1:12:38 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

JF, <If the goal was to really help the end user, the industry should establish a board of independent testers, with a simple to understand rating system. It might give a rating for several performance categories, and then an average, final number. Better yet, the systems should be rated, not the components.> Well said. This is exactly what I was arguing for back when AMD announced their ModelHurtz cheese last year. Instead, the supporters of ModelHurtz would rather trade one bad scheme for another, then pretend it's OK for the loser when it isn't for the winner. Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (169717)	8/21/2002 1:30:31 PM
From: Joey Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John, Tench, Wanna: "ModelHurts Myth" I've often wondered this myself. Certainly, Intel has more than enough ammo to do a serious smear campaign against AMD's PR scheme. Doesn't seem to be Intel's style though (to talk about the competition in public). Also, Banias migh have something to do with it as well ? Joey

To: Road Walker who wrote (169717)	8/21/2002 4:29:43 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John, Re: "If the goal was to really help the end user, the industry should establish a board of independent testers, with a simple to understand rating system. It might give a rating for several performance categories, and then an average, final number. Better yet, the systems should be rated, not the components." In my opinion, multiple numbers will confuse the consumer, and any single number will fail to capture the performance for different applications. I see no problem to listing megahertz as a measurement of CPU clock cycles per second, just as long as there is a way to also identify advantages in the micro-architecture. Unfortunately, a measurement for the latter does not yet exist that can tell the whole story. The actual solution to this problem may be difficult indeed, but as long as one company or the other is ahead in megahertz, I don't see much of a compelling reason for them to pioneer in this area. wbmw

To: Road Walker who wrote (169717)	8/22/2002 1:47:08 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Alright, some poster made some comment about Intel executive stock options so I found some stuff: 1. the first is that cash bonuses were down and were made up by a double dose of stock options, which is alright because it protects cash flow, but it seemed to be a trend, which could be problematic, so I undertook a little study. 2. It appears that the outstanding "dilution" is going down at Intel. This, of course, is not unpleasant news for existing shareholders. My calculations are as follows, and they are based on TOTAL outstanding stock PLUS options to acquire out standing stock not yet exercised: (in 000,000s) 1997-7,159 shares 1998-6,974 " 1999-6,900 2000-6,976 2001-6,794 2002(Q1)-6,685 What I think this means is that total company buy backs and reduced options (sic!) have reduced the total outstanding. I tried to eyeball the total issued, and it seemed in-line. In other words, it does not seem to be a situation that the real outstanding is being redeemed fast than stock options are being issued. (and on a preliminary study, like this, I don't think that is of significance, anyway) If my conclusions are correct, this would seem to be a very favorable situation. Comments, please. If anyone wants to check my work, I used reported total earnings divided by diluted earnings per share.