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 (42933)	12/7/1998 3:35:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572919

Jim, Re: "I do, however, agree with Maxwell about Dell. "If" the K7 is the chip we think it will be and AMD can execute, then it could become a BIG LIABILITY to be an all-Intel boxmaker because in the beginning, AMD is going to take care of current customers first. I believe that Gateway would already selling AMD boxes if they could get chips because they want to be able to get K7s when they come out. If DELL was smart they'd get their order in now for K6-3s so they will at least have a shot at some K7s when they come out...otherwise, the face of top tiers like Dell and Gateway could change drastically." It sounds to me like you're building a pretty wild house of cards on your premise "the future of Dell and Gateway depends on how they handle their K7 strategy." I mean Dell, for example, has higher revenues per quarter than AMD does per year. Also, they are very profitable. I would think that they, as the perennial Intel champion, could bring a lot of pressure to bear in keeping the sweetheart deal going with Intel WRT price and delivery. Also, even assuming K7 does leapfrog Intel, do you think they'll stand still? Tony

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (42933)	12/7/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 1572919

Jim, Intels segmentation strategy The big problem with Intel's strategy is that they are trying to devalue the entry level marketplace. At the same time, Cyrix and AMD are trying to provide maximum value to that segment. Given the intentions of the different companies, who is likely to win? Not Intel! PII offers negative value vs. Dixon, and they will only be able to maintain their illusion for so long. Scumbria

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (42933)	12/7/1998 4:43:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572919

<Intels segmentation strategy, creating the fasade that the Pentium II is a better chip than the CeleronA, is working.> How about just plain old confusion in the market? I mentioned the Celeron to an old friend of mine who wants me to build a PC for him. He originally had the impression that the Celeron is slower than the Pentium. I had to explain to him that the Celeron 300A and the 333 have 128K of on-die cache, so it performs on-par with an equivalently-clocked Pentium II. (Then I had to explain the concept behind an L2 cache, etc.) (Side note to Jim: CeleronA is somewhat of a misnomer. The 'A' suffix only applies to the 300 MHz speed grade, i.e. the Celeron 300 and the Celeron 300A. In other words, there is no such thing as a Celeron 333A; all Celeron 333 CPUs have on-die L2 cache.) I also mentioned Celeron to another friend of mine and she was wondering whether that was an Intel chip or not. Much of this confusion comes from Intel's own marketing. As we all know, the Celeron is alive and well, but we're not seeing Homer's brain upgraded to a Celeron now, are we? Seems like the average retail consumers who should be buying Celerons over Pentium II's are the very ones that don't know about the Celeron in the first place. Tenchusatsu