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: eracer who wrote (195076)	4/25/2006 8:33:06 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I think you are ignoring evidence that yields are bad on Intel's 65nm process. You can't buy more than 4 or 5 Yonah at newegg, and the cheapest one (1.67 GHz) is $240. You have to figure Intel is getting at least 3/4 of that -- $180. If the cost of production is really $30 as it should be, why did Intel keep the price so high and allow AMD to take notebook market share? Even with a lack of retail Core Duo notebooks, there is no volume available for the DIY'er either. ergo, cost of production is no where near $30. Because the volume produced is way below what it should be. The same is true of Netburse 65nm. The cheapest one is a model 641 Cedar Mill, tiny die size, 3 GHz, that still sells for $177. And it has a quantity limit of 10. The cheapest dual core, model 930 is still above Intel's average ASP+markup at $226. All of the really cheap chips that BUGGI has been telling us about are 90nm Celerons and P4's. The evidence says that Intel can't make ANY 65nm chips at a low enough cost to sell them below their average ASP. Petz