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: justaview who wrote (227881)	3/10/2007 12:56:18 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Whether it's Penryn or 3.4GHz 65nm parts, something with higher performance will hit volume in Q3. If anything a 2.93GHz Core 2 Quad would be my guess. It will be the easiest to produce in volume in my opinion. Intel couldn't justify a nearly 4x price increase for a <10% performance improvement of a 3.33GHz Core 2 Extreme over 3GHz Core 2 Duo.

To: justaview who wrote (227881)	3/16/2007 10:15:47 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

jav, I don't think that Intel has ever abandoned the top $900 odd price points. Instead they have always cascaded the prices down when they had new top end parts to replace them. Whether it's Penryn or 3.4GHz 65nm parts, something with higher performance will hit volume in Q3. What I find crazy is that the $900 spot is occuppied by quad core chips. Intel seems to be making a bet that people will care about quad core, that will (for most customers) perform slower that dual core. If Intel has 3.4 GHz Penryn for $900, all is fine. But if Intel stops at 3 GHz with DC (at < $300) hoping that buyers will flock to quad core chips, that, IMO, is not a sound bet. Joe