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: AK2004 who wrote (51712)	3/31/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul Engel. Last year I posted that it looked like Covington, (Celeron), was a knee jerk reaction to AMD and the sub-0's. Well it sure doesn't look like it will be accepted. It also appears that my prediction the P55C and socket 7 will be around longer than Intel would like will come true. Why doesn't Intel come out with a P55C 300/333? While it might not be good for the ego, it could be an AMD killer until they get slot 1 for the low end right. Comments?

To: AK2004 who wrote (51712)	3/31/1998 5:57:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Al, The more I think about this Celery thing the more I realize how tricky it is for Intel. They could really be shooting themselves in the foot. Let's consider the options. We know Intel will be the sole provider of Motherboards for the EX and the Celeron...at least this is what Paul E. seems to think. Intel then has the option of having a slot on the mobo for an add on L2 cache. If they have that what's to prevent someone buying a module and plugging it in and speeding up the system. Let's ay you can do that and end up with close to Pentium II performance... So...did Intel just shoot the Pentium II in the foot? Just buy a Celeron and add the cache...get close to P2 performance for a lot less money. Not hard to figure out. Intel could use a proprietary slot for the cache so they could price it high but Taiwan would be quick with there own mobo or adapter. For this reason, My guess is that the Celeron mobo won't have a slot to add cache. So Intel shoots themselves in the foot again as the Celeron is continually dogged as a slow non-add-on cache system AND it becomes clear what Intel is trying to pull off...get rid off slot one and if you want L2 you have to pay the big bucks for the Pentium II. Somehow I don't think this Microchannel approach is going to fly. Jim

To: AK2004 who wrote (51712)	4/1/1998 1:36:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

For AMD, if the yield was improved to be as high as 80% with 150 gross dies on 8" wafer with 0.35 um process, the cost per die can be as low as $8.3, and the unit cost can be as low as $30 per unit. With 8" wafer, 0.25 um process, assume the yield is 65% with 340 gross dies, the cost can be as low as $5.5 per die. and the cost per unit can be as low as $27.5. So sells for $75 per unit, the profit margin is not bad at all. The MPU division of AMD is making tons of money, and AMD as a whole lose money is not because of its CPU business. AMD should close up all its other divisions, and concentrate all its resources on CPU business.