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: Elmer Phud who wrote (118380)	4/5/2004 8:52:56 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmerp: Why then is Intel's revenue and more than all of the profit in the CPU division only? So if the CPU division had no revenue or costs, Intel would be hemoraging money with revenue of $1.07 billion and losses of $1.17 billion. Now even if you add back in the older processes and the embedded CPUs, chip sets and all other such logic except CPUs, Intel would still be hemoraging money with revenue of 2.25 billion and losses of $1.31 billion. Thus their only profit and the bulk of their revenue must come from mainline general purpose CPUs like P4, Banias and Itanium. Even adding in Itanium, Intel is still losing money with less than $2.4 billion in revenue and losses of $1.42 billion. Now Banias (p3 and its derivatives) and P4 (Prescott and Northwood and their derivatives) thus make up $6.35 billion in revenue alone last Q, Q4/03, and add back in $3.98 billion in profit. Since $1.42 billion in losses must be made up, CPUs must bring in at least $2.27 billion if all their costs were variable. But most costs are fixed and thus at least $3.79 billion in revenue must be made on 37.9 million CPUs or about $100 ASP. However, some costs are not added in during Q4 as retained earnings only showed a net profit of $485 million. Given dividends of $131 million, most of the difference was in the stock buy back program of $2 billion. Thus the ASP needed to break even was only $100 last quarter, Q4/03, the options expensing for Intel would be more like a $2 billion hit or $53 a CPU ASP increase. Also this does not take into account depreciation of those 90nm 300mm fabs going into production so the breakeven ASP may even be higher yet. As far as the compilers go, gcc is used at far far more sites than those listed. At the many sites I worked in, Intel's compiler was never used because it was too buggy. You could get it to work only after much trial and error but, who wants to make the effort when building custom (one off) applications? Of course MSVC and the various UNIX, VMS, MVS and VM compilers were used as well. As to FORTRAN, GNU does not have a compliant F90 compiler. Add to the fact that Intel's compilers do not generate x86-64 code, that may be a bigger problem in the long run. Gcc already works well as does pgf and others in generating x86-64 code. Pete