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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Duane L. Olson who wrote (12419)	5/15/1998 5:18:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Respond to of 25814

And that's why the equip-makers are in a desert absent oases - only mirages <eom>

To: Duane L. Olson who wrote (12419)	5/15/1998 7:01:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25814

Duane, >>>"Is your view of things as gloomy as Mr. Chief Naysayer?"<<< I think he's wrong this time, at least re Intel 2H98 and 1999 results (2Q98 is supposed to be flat to down slightly compared to 1Q98 per Andy Grove recently). However, Craig Barrett, soon to be (next week?) CEO of Intel, has said on two occasions that 2H98 starts to get good again. That's because Intel has a slew of new products coming out, to go with current Pentium IIs. These go from $160 or so PII's to further cut the legs from under AMD and Cyrix, to >$4,000 PII's at 400 to 500 MHz and up to 2MB L2 cache, and a lot of other chips such as notebook slated ones besides. So, I think Kurlak is all wet this time, unless he's just not looking beyond 2Q98. I have more confidence in Intel rebounding than I do in LSI, but maybe some of that is because I know the computer/server and CPU chip businesses far better than I know the businesses of LSI's customers. Below, courtesy and I hope he doesn't mind my plagiarism, is Paul Engel's view of what Kurlak came out with today. Look at Paul's profile on SI Intel, and tell me who you are more likely to believe. Mary Cluney (55565 ) From: Paul Engel Friday, May 15 1998 12:46PM ET Reply # of 55641 Mary - Re: "What does it mean to me as an investor when Intel goes from 0.35 to 0.25 and then to 0.18 micron process in terms of increased production and efficencies and lowering cost as well as ramifications to competitors." Several things happen. 1. A given device can be reduced in size in going from a 0..35 to a 0.25 micron process - or from 0.25 to 0.18 micron process. 2. A MORE COMPLEX DIE with more transistors - can be made in a similar die size using smaller process geometries. NOTE - KURLAK's COMMENTS about Intel were WRONG! Intel's capacity (per wafer) has not INCREASED in going from 0.35 to 0.25 micron process. Intel IS SWITCHING FROM THE PENTIUM MMX (128 - 140 sq. mm.) on a 0.35 micron process to the Pentium II/Deschutes (131 sq. mm) on a 0.25 micron process. BASICALLY - Intel's capacity/wafer is CONSTANT - since they are substituting a more complex, powerful device - Pentium II/Deschutes at 0.25 micron process for the less complex Pentium MMX on the 0.35 micron process. Note - Mendicono will be even LARGER - representing a REDUCTION in capacity if you compare a Pentium MMX on a 0.35 micron process to a Mendocino at 0.25 micron feature sizes. 3. Speed increases with decreasing feature size. 4. Power DECREASES - with reduced power supply levels/thinner oxides/narrower channel lengths which are part of the smaller process. 5. Intel stretches the distance between itself and competitors as Intel has shown it can develop and ramp these more advanced processes FASTER than their competitors. Paul