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: Amy J who wrote (178644)	7/15/2004 3:04:33 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy It's well-known in the industry that non-cpu chips don't always easily fit into a rigid copy exact formula of the cpu world. I don't know where you heard this but I would go by the assumption that they do fit in the "copy exactly" formula. Why wouldn't they?

To: Amy J who wrote (178644)	7/15/2004 1:40:53 PM
From: greg s	Respond to of 186894

Amy, re: So I'm not entirely convinced all other divisions can easily use Intel's fabs that are geared towards cpu's. I'm assuming you mean x86 CPU's when you use the term "CPU" above. I spent several years in Intel divisions which concentrated in non-x86 devices. Everything from 8 and 16-bit embedded controllers which were built on trailing fab processes to high-end i960 embedded solutions which used the latest fab processes. In all cases, "copy exactly" was employed and succeeded. Copy exactly was a way of life, as I'm sure it still is.