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: Richard Nehrboss who wrote (52496)	4/9/1998 1:28:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Richard - Re: "a company that doesn't design anything for the low end and yet dominates even that segment of the market." That was a well-thought out conclusion. Thanks. Paul

To: Richard Nehrboss who wrote (52496)	4/9/1998 11:08:00 AM
From: derek cao	Respond to of 186894

RE: Difference is Intel doesn't design for the low end. The design sow well and fast that there high end becomes the low end. Richard, you are right in the pre-slot-I/II era since Intel platform is an open one and Intel intend to keep the old one around as the low end. But this time is different, in order to have the total control over its competitors Intel decide to switch to proprietary PII platform as fast as it could and abandon Socket-7. Remember Apple coming to MSFT begging for survival just a couple months ago? Intel wishs AMD,NSM and other cloners will do the same so Intel can maintain a token competition without worrying too much. Without a low manufacture cost and decent performance PII CPU, that strategy may not work. I hope this explains my statement "how could they forget the low end is way beyond me". derek

To: Richard Nehrboss who wrote (52496)	4/9/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: Jeff Fox	Respond to of 186894

Richard, re: Low End bullshit Your observation is correct - Intel moves old processor generations to the low end, then follows up with backfill by cost reducing the current generation. The kick I get is that AMD has never designed for the low end. Their "copy Intel" strategy has just left their best efforts two years behind and performance short. They are "low-end" because that is just the best they can do. They do not have the cost for the low end, resulting in massive losses. Once again the day will soon come when the market again realizes that AMD will never make money on the K6. Hopes will again recycle around the K6-3d with the same results as Celeron positioning drives them ever deeper into the red. I am sure anxious to meet the fools that by AMD's new private placement equities. Jerry says, "Hey, were spending money at record rates, we're competing against America's toughest competitor and we've lost big three times before with the same strategy - since I can't seem to make any money please give me your money! Why don't these dreamers burn the cash their cash in a fireplace and at least get a little warmth from it? There are examples galore of Intel's strategy: 286 followed by the 386SX (AMD only had the 286) 386 followed by the 486SX (AMD busily removing stolen Intel code) Pentium Classic in plastic (AMD K5 debacle) Now Celeron (AMD K6, their top-of-the-line) Jeff