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: robert b furman who wrote (178608)	7/14/2004 9:06:14 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

The good news: Demand appears to be fine right now and will probably be fine into '05. ICG is doing very well and flash is still taking share. Th bad news: If you listened to the 1Q conference call, inventory was an issue that a lot of analysts focused on. Inventory had been building for a while, and it was starting to flash warning signals. And yet, on this 2Q call, Barrett claims that the inventory problem only arose very late in the 2Q. It almost sounds like the analysts have a better grip on the business than Barrett does. Also, for most all of '03 the big story on Intel was the gross margin expansion. 04 performance was predicated on gross margin. A lot of that excellent gross margin is imbedded in that inventory. If Intel had been a little better in managing their inventory, they wouldn't have made the quarter. It appears as though Intel was late to the inventory issue because they were way too focused on making the earnings number, which is not a good way to run a business.

To: robert b furman who wrote (178608)	7/16/2004 2:56:49 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

robert, re "It appears to me that Intel is in uncharted waters relative to anyone else in accomplishing high 300mmfab yields. Of course the old 225% more chips per wafer might just be getting thrown out the window." Assuming you are referring to the same process on 300mm instead of 200mm, the theoretical increase would be 125%. So your "225%" is probably a typo. However, a 90nm process should also yield more chips than a 130nm process. What do you think the increase would be for this process change .. without a simultaneous change in wafer size? Ron