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: TGPTNDR who wrote (207642)	8/4/2006 10:34:19 PM
From: eracer	Respond to of 275872

Re: Not hardly the last time they introduced a new product. If you're going to argue about what INTC said in a press release you should at least read the release. There's been some serious volume expansion in the industry since '93. A much more recent, and more relevent, comparison would be to the Smithfield/Paxville launches: Intel supplied 148 thousand of Intel Pentium D 800-series processors in Q2 2005, 593 thousand of those chips in Q3 2005 and was aiming to ship about 770 thousand of its first-generation dual-core chips in Q4 2005. The same report indicated that Intel supplied 10 thousand of dual-core Intel Xeon DP “Paxville” processors in Q3 2005 and was planning to ship 85 thousand of such chips in Q4 2005. xbitlabs.com

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (207642)	8/5/2006 10:11:49 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

TGPTNDR: I think this nit-picking has gone beyond any value. The purpose of my posts (and of my reading other people's posts) to draw attention to a fact or to propose an interpretation for it so it can be considered. Clearly we've all had a chance to be exposed to the 1 million number and to consider what it means as far as Intel's ramp rate. Which previous product Otellini referred is not relevant to this point. If we were discussing the history of Intel product launches, it would be relevant. But we're not. >> Hey, I'm just challenging what you say. If you don't say what you mean how can anybody give you any credibility at all? I cannot possibly mean that Intel had started 1 million wafers in 10 weeks. If making that explicit adds value, then we're starting from too low a base, and the conversation is useless.