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: kash johal who wrote (67691)	11/1/1998 2:53:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

<You are wrong again. The company that has developed it is NOT Intel. Intel, AMD and National have licensed it from a bay area start up. Products should start appearing next year.> I was not aware that AMD and National even have the dough to do this kind of stuff. Are you sure it isn't outside help which is doing it for AMD and National, and not AMD and National themselves? <It is elitist folks like you who cannot imagine lower priced computers and servers who are on the short end of the trend to low cost ubiquitous computing.> Oh, trust me, I'm not elistist, and I do realize what you are saying. So does Intel. I just think that AMD's strategy of low-balling the prices of every market segment isn't going to work past retail. <Just like the sub-$1000 computer market, which was dismissed by the Intel folks. Folks like you dismiss the price sensitivities of the business market.> I think you're hoping a little too much. The retail market still only counted for about 9% of total CPU sales. AMD's gains in the retail market are admirable and necessary to establish reputation. But it becomes a different ballgame when you move into the business market, not to mention the server and workstation market. Here's a hint: It's not all about processors, and neither is Intel anymore thanks to diversification. <It is true that major US companies like to purchase high end expensive machines. However most job growth and technology growth is with small business. Many of whom are extremely cost/performance sensitive and many of whom will be happy to purchase machiines based on alternate CPU's.> As if Intel isn't aware of this. Look at the current prices of the Pentium II. (You don't have to point out that this was a response to AMD; I already know.) Look at Intel's initiatives to hit the small business market. Look at how Intel is willing to sacrifice the high margins in order to keep market share. Look at how paranoid Intel is after misjudging the sub-$1000 market. You have to admit that AMD's current success was mainly due to Intel's slowness to enter the sub-$1000 market. I've learned that in any competition, whether sports or business, relying solely on the mistakes of the opponent in order to win is a losing game plan. Even Intel's own game plan assumes that AMD makes no mistakes. Even Intel realizes that they aren't going to be the only player in the game anymore. <I suggest to you that by end of next year a 500-600Mhz CPU with 256K DRAM and 10Gb Disk and 100Mb ethernet etc will sell for $1000 range. In todays terms that's not a thin server, that's a pretty hefty machine.> Gee, Kash, that's a pretty bold prediction. And you think that such a machine is going to have the AMD K7 in it as well? Do you also think that the 700 MHz K7 with 8 MB of L2 CSRAM will be available by the end of the year at a price of $100? This is the dream of all AMD-lovers. They see AMD make gains in the retail market, and they expect AMD to use the same "formula of success" in other markets. They are hoping that by the end of the year 2000, AMD will be able to sell an 8-way K8 computer running at 2 GHz for under $1000, and see ASP rise in the process. Naivety cost Intel the retail market. Naivety will cost AMD their new-found profits. Tenchusatsu