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: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (50781)	3/18/1998 9:25:00 PM
From: THE BIG GB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

HI TO ALL JUST LIKE TO SAY INTEL IS A GREAT CO. I RESENTLY MADE A INVESTMENT IN A SMALL CO. (TBTI). THE CO. INDICATES IN PR THAT INTEL MAY SIGN CONTRACT FOR PRODUCT, ANY INFO ON SUBJECT, PLEASE POST THANKS

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (50781)	3/18/1998 9:59:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Barry, <to compete with the undisputed low-cost producer with an 80% market share... we are going to 400MHz plus real soon now.> Are you absolutely sure about "low-cost" at 400MHz? Do you know by the chance how much two (or four) pieces of the proprietary 400-MHz SDRAM may cost for Intel? BTW, this thread looks more like AMD thread:) Why so much attention to a company that is going to belly up, gentlemen? Just curious...

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (50781)	3/18/1998 10:00:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Barry, Re -- and lowers CPU prices, IBM wins.. How does IBM win? IBM's cost structure does not permit it to play in the low cost PC game, as evidence of their slowly losing market share. If you mean more PC demand, will somehow increase IBM's revenue in other areas in any significant sense, you need to show how (IBM is still a mainframe company). If you mean IBM will win just because Intel loses (and this would be a long drawn battle). I dont think IBM is where its at with such a strategy. Thus even the possibility of IBM doing the x86 chip thing is very very remote, and would be because IBM has somehow figured out a way to make money out of it. Stockman

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (50781)	3/18/1998 10:44:00 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Barry, re: CPU performance. From the roadmap I've seen Intel is constraining Celeron to 333mHz on a 66 MHZ bus through 1H'99. I'm assuming this is mainly to clearly differentiate Celeron from PII. And I think K6, K7 (or whatever), has the potential, (other than AMD's ineptness), to achieve much higher speeds on the 0.25 process. As for maintaining socket 7, among other things, I see an esoteric reason for it's survival. I have an HP PII machine, and the CPU and blower housing dedicated to it consume about 100 cubic inches of cabinet space! Takes a lot more room than the power supply. Compare that to socket 7! BTW, you can correctly assume I'm one of those who wouldn't buy an AMD PC. But I also believe that Intel's bottom line problems through '98 and into '99 are largely the impact of AMD's chips. And I believe strongly that IBM and Compaq will keep them afloat. BTW, did you read Dvorak's article in the current PC Mag? Intel and Compaq to merge! ;-)

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (50781)	3/19/1998 12:01:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Barry - Re: "AMD is guilty of what I consider to be one of the most stupid strategies in the history of business. Look, an inefficient, cash starved company...." Good discussion of the problems AMD caused themselves. If AMD ever does go belly up, I nominate you to write their obituary! Paul