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: Tony Viola who wrote (51708)	3/31/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony, Tell me...who is lining up to buy the Celeron? DELL? Gateway? SONY? Maybe SONY...does DELL even want to be in the Sub-$1000 market? I don't think the Celeron will take off but I don't underestimate Intels marketing ploys either. So let's say it does...and you can add an L2 cache on the mobo...although I'm not sure about that. Does Celeron cannibalize the higher priced Pentium IIs? Does it Replace regular Pemtium MMXs? How much is an EX based mobo? Indications are now that there is an oversupply of chips coming... Jim

To: Tony Viola who wrote (51708)	3/31/1998 4:48:00 PM
From: gnuman	Respond to of 186894

Celeron Tanks in Testing. Excerpt from PC World The Celeron system earned a PC WorldBench 98 score of only 106, compared to the 126 posted by a similarly configured PC using a 233-MHz K6 chip from AMD, which is widely available in $999 systems. The Celeron system's performance on business applications was worse than that of low-price Cyrix-based systems and systems running on the chip the Celeron is meant to supplant--Intel's Pentium MMX-233, which can be found in PCs costing about $1100. In fact, the Celeron could barely keep pace with PCs running on Intel's PMMX-200, which is used in systems that cost as little as $799.

To: Tony Viola who wrote (51708)	3/31/1998 5:38:00 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 186894

Tony re: Intel product in the past has crushed all competition. here we go. If everything else fails then the "crushing" argument comes to play. :-))

To: Tony Viola who wrote (51708)	4/1/1998 1:30:00 AM
From: ed	Respond to of 186894

As you know company will not claim that yield has improved based on the result of one wafer, so if AMD said the yield has improved, then it is improved. As to the pin holes, metal to metal short, electron migration ....etc , reliability related issues, I think before the products were delivered to the customers, they are supposed to be qualified properly, so , all products shipped to the customers should be qualified as far as reliability is concerned, unless AMD never qualifify its products. The yield loss can be caused by defects of the process or a design margin issue. If it is caused by process defects , then switched to IBM's FAB may help improve the yield further. If it is caused by design window, it may not help, and it all depends on the process margin and how accurate the SPICE models and the consistency of the process are.