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: tepli who wrote (50748)	3/18/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

tepli, Re -- So why AMD instead of Intel ? and 486. The 486 is a low margin product, which Intel is not focused on for such low volumes as the Nokia communicator (read no profits). Thus AMD. Stockman

To: tepli who wrote (50748)	3/18/1998 12:09:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tepli - Re: "Nokia has AMD's 486 processor in their new 9110 Communicator. The previous 9000 model had Intel 386." It appears that Intel lost the design to AMD - I don't know the reason, but I would suspect that AMD offered them a better price. Paul

To: tepli who wrote (50748)	3/19/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 186894

Tepli, It's actually pretty simple. Intel considers the 486 to be effectively a dead product. They'll make a few of them now and then when capacity in their older fabs permits, but it's not something they focus on at all. They'd rather focus their older fab capacity on high-volume microcontrollers and the like. Starting up a low-volume 486 line would not be worth their while. mg

To: tepli who wrote (50748)	3/19/1998 5:20:00 PM
From: Mike Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "So why AMD instead of Intel ?" There is a great article on that in a magazine I read (I believe it was Fortune, but I'm not sure). Basically, Grove said that he had focused on low margin products in the past, and that he wasn't going to repeat the same mistake again. The margin is far greater on new processor chips than for older chips powering consumer level devices. The article was quite negative on Intel, in part stating that the new growth market may be processors in consumer electronics, not desktop PCs. It said that perhaps the paranoid (Grove's famous comment "only the paranoid survive") was not paranoid enough. I agree with the magazine that Intel may have slipped not focusing on what I believe to be a bigger growth market (long term) than desktop PCs. On the other hand, I believe that Intel has time .... if the market proves big and lucrative enough, Intel can easily crank up the presses to meet that demand.