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: Tony Viola who wrote (56712)	6/2/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: Francis Chow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<So, at least Intel doesn't have to worry about a paradigm change in what may constitute CPU chips, as IBM did about their mainframes.> What about the WinChip? Isn't it to the omnibus CPU what the PC was to the mainframe?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (56712)	6/2/1998 10:58:00 PM
From: Doug M.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony, I have more exact figures for the Intel server segment market share numbers. I confirmed these with John Hull over the phone - he is now John Miner's assistant. His figures for IDC showed that there were 1.98 million servers sold in 1997 and Intel had a 77% market share. When I tried to reconfirm if he felt comfortable with the estimate of 8 million servers to be sold in 2001 he said that's not too far off the mark, or something to that effect. Basically, he said that's a good ballpark figure. However, by that time IDC predicts Intel will have 88% of the server market. When I pressed him to estimate how many processors would be in each server he seemed to think an average of three would be too high. He said he wishes that they would average three, but that's probably unrealistic. Paul was right when he said the extra horsepower of the processors at that time will mitigate the need for extra CPU's. Maybe we will average 2.5 per server. He said he thinks IDC is a little old fashioned in the way they compile their figures, and the above number may not fully take into effect the explosive growth of the internet. He was quite helpful and polite. Also, he thinks the market is overreacting to the Merced delay (which I agree with). He pointed out that just because Merced's not going to be there on time many analysts are projecting a complete product vacuum for six months or so. He said those Merced slots will be filled with high end Intel products (Xeon or Tanner). To think that revenue stream is completely lost is simplistic and shows a lack of knowledge of the Intel product roadmap. Let's hope Intel can scrape up enough pennies to make this quarter, it will be a BIG psychological boost. We can't afford any more negative publicity. Take care, Doug