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: Jim McMannis who wrote (32735)	5/17/1998 4:23:00 PM
From: StockMan	Respond to of 1571806

Re -- I suppose you and Yousef will chime in about the "superior" process technology of Intel making up for the difference in die size but suppose that doesn't last forever. Hummm. Suppose the moon fell to earth, suppose Jim M was really a pimply faced little kid hmmmmm...

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (32735)	5/17/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1571806

<Can't you or Yousef answer my question about the relative cost of a Pentium II and K6, all things being equal?> That's the problem Jim, all things aren't equal. If they were how could Intel keep posting $Billion+ earnings with a more expensive production cost? How could AMD keep posting $50Million+ losses with a cheaper die? That's what I go by. It is a mistake to judge die cost by area alone. Yields aren't equal, throughput isn't equal. Intel's fabs are payed for, AMD's carry large interest costs. Higher volumes help spread fixed cost across more parts. Volume purchases lower equipment expenses. IBM will surely extract a profit from AMD for the die they produce. AMD uses process patents under license from IBM, think they are free? EP