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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Tuck who wrote (31330)	4/7/1998 9:24:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583775

Richard Tuck, Re -- Unfortunately, Intel cannot compete with old parts because anything made on the 0.35um process will soon be less cost effective (due to larger die sizes) than the 0.25um parts. A fully depreciated Fab is more cost effective than one with new equipment. Part of the overall cost of the product includes the cost of the Fab. Thus .35u products can be cheaper than newer .25u Fab products. Stockman

To: Richard Tuck who wrote (31330)	4/7/1998 9:31:00 PM
From: Brian Hutcheson	Respond to of 1583775

Richard , re. AMD and Intel being poor investments And which technology company do you consider a good investment ? Which area of technology has a better profit margin than CPUs ? Just curious what you have found to be better , Brian

To: Richard Tuck who wrote (31330)	4/7/1998 10:42:00 PM
From: Time Traveler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583775

Richard, "Intel cannot compete with old parts because anything made on the 0.35um process will soon be less cost effective (due to larger die sizes) than the 0.25um parts" You forgot about Deschutte, the 0.25um version of Pentium/MMX which came out months before the 0.25um version of K6! Wake up, please! John.