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: Joey Smith who wrote (40549)	11/1/1998 11:38:00 AM
From: ajbrenner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573695

Joey, the party is over for Intel. Now that the OEM's have had a taste of real choice and real competition in the CPU market they will NEVER allow themselves to be held hostage to a single supplier again.

To: Joey Smith who wrote (40549)	11/1/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573695

Joey, Re However, I would be worried if I was long AMD because Intel's >strategy is clear: introduce faster processors at the low-end while >matching AMD with price. I believe Andy Grove made a statement >recently to the effect "the party's over for AMD". He usually means >what he says. Sure, this may hurt Intel's bottom-line a little bit, but the >effect on AMD will continue to be devastating. So early next year they will have 366 and maybe 400 Mhz celery's to compete with AMD. What do you think will happen to PII pricing as the 400Mhz celery with full speed cache will be as fast a PII 450. And a K6-3 400/450 will blow away PII 450 and Celery 450/500. Looks like AMD will be competing head on with 90% of Intels CPU's and as the lowest cost supplier they win the price war hands down. The major problem intel has is its cost structure. It's ASP's are around $220 and with 50% margin their raw manufacturing cost is $110. As celeron and PII die sizes are similar and these sales constitute 90% of the company sales in Q3 these are absolute numbers. AMD has a manufacturing cost of <$50 per cpu and that's with it's major fab running at 60% capacity. So Intel can hurt AMD but they cannot kill them anymore, due to AMD being able to compete in majority of Intels speed range. As regards Andy he is just one person, and he has been wrong many times. Their whole Celery thing has been a disaster. Ramping CPU speed and lowering prices is a good strategy but they need to slash their costs as well to follow AMD's strategy of HIGH permance at a GREAT Price. Regards, Kash

To: Joey Smith who wrote (40549)	11/1/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1573695

Joey, RE:"im, first of all, there was just a tad of sensationalism in that article, so I don't think Intel is forced to drastically change its strategy due to market condition as the article implies. However, I would be worried if I was long AMD because Intel's strategy is clear: introduce faster processors at the low-end while matching AMD with price. I believe Andy Grove made a statement recently to the effect "the party's over for AMD". He usually means what he says. Sure, this may hurt Intel's bottom-line a little bit, but the effect on AMD will continue to be devastating." ------ Intels new Celeron strategy is a concern. I wish I knew what it was. Intel could easily move the Celeron to 366 and 400 much faster than their roadmap suggests but that would leave only one speed grade for the Pentium II, 450. So maybe the Pentium II goes to 500 or gets 256k on chip cache in quarter one. I'm also looking for an earlier introduction of the Katmai, maybe end of February. Maybe they will call the Katmai the Pentium III and phase out the Pentium II. Maybe an Intelabee will fill us in. Jim