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: Paul Roder who wrote (52007)	4/3/1998 4:19:00 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 186894

Paul actually I do not think that Celeron is going to be cheaper I posted e-mail of small shops in Houston that builds k6-200 for ~$500 with 32m sdram, 2.1 G HD, 3d surround sound with 4m sound card, etc. They charge less than $100 (included in 500) for k6 while the difference in m-board prices between s7 and pii roughly on the order of $100. Intel would be able to match k6 price with Celeron only if they give it for free and in order to beat k6 prices they would have to pay OEMs for putting it in the systems. Regards -Albert

To: Paul Roder who wrote (52007)	4/3/1998 5:32:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Paul - Re: "How can this chip be the price/performance leader when it is clearly outperformed by Pentium MMX, as well as Cyrix and AMD offerings already filling these sub-$1000 PC's" Do you have any data, other than a few "magazines", who reported that this was the case? Do you know how much these systems will sell for? How would you characterize a 266 MHz Celeron machine with a price of, say, $749? Or $675? Is that what you call a "hoodwinking" price? If the price is specified and the performance is specified, why do you think that somebody is being "hoodwinked?. Remember - Intel is NOT selling a Pentium II for these prices. A Pentium II implies that the L2 cache SRAM is included. This is a CELERON - get used to that name - A Celeron uses a similar IC but the first Celeron incarnation includes no L2 cache. Do AMD customers get hoodwinked because a K6 has no L2 cache included but requires additional costs to add this feature? Are you crying to AMD that they are hoodwinking their customers because K6 perfromance is drastically reduced if the K6 is used WITHOUT and EXTRA COST L2 cache? Are you concerned that AMD and Cyrix all provide benchmark data with LARGE L2 caches in their systems, and these caches ARE NOT part of the K6 or 6x86MX but are EXTRA COST ITEMS? Paul