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: Srini who wrote (65300)	9/23/1998 2:40:00 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Srini, re: < maybe I'm missing something very obvious.> You make a very good point. I also can't believe that Compaq, (or any maker for that matter), is going to pay a much higher price for the same chip, as apparently Paul contends.

To: Srini who wrote (65300)	9/23/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: Jeff Fox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Srini, re:"what is the special attraction now... ?" Most likely marketing and tweaking. In fact most desktop chips are unsuitable for notebooks. Here's a list of things that AMD may have needed to market for mobile: 1. Packaging - notebook chips require much more compact packages which are generally more expensive and more difficult to make. 2. Power management - Notebook chips must shut off in various ways to minimize battery power use. These features are probably in the desktop version, but might not work right or might not be tested. 3. Specifications - AMD may have not had the right process control and/or testing to meet required power specs. PC companies do not use chips for mobile unless a supplier backs the product for that use. 4. Pure marketing - AMD has likely not pushed this market due to tight chip supplies, etc. The PC mobile makers are different departments - different accounts. Perhaps AMD hasn't called on these folks previously. Jeff