Looks good if dividends are all you care about; but i agree\ with IBD\ never buy for the dividend.\ Even more so\ if its dead money from1999.\ Even more\ so since INTC down YTD\ WE will soon be done with troubles + trials\ rest a little while--\ -Happy Goodmans.\ But the Happy Good mans never sang about a buy on INTC barchart.com has a it a 100% sell long term. It may bounce a bit off 25$\ but it bounced abit @75\ $50...................
Ok. But does that mean Intel won't make money? I contend that you want to look at who is providing a good value to their customer, what is their volume of sales and what is their profit margin. Often being on the bleeding edge is a great way to lose money. Would you invest in an aircraft company based on who makes the fastest airplane? Especially when the company making that fastest airplane has to have their engines fabricated by a third party? Especially if that third party is the only one who can fabricate those engines and knows it? For me, Intel having their own fab is important. I believe it puts them in a significtanly different market position than many other companies. I think AMD is going to lose pricing power over time because there will be more and more CPU designs out there and AMD does not have exclusive access to TSMC's fab. I think more and more of the total profit on a CPU will be going to the fab and less to the designer. Intel will not be hurt as badly because they have a fab. IMO, the specific design of processors is going to become less and less of a differentiator over time. The game these days seems to be plopping down as many cores are possible, clocked as high as possible. We're not really seeing change like that which happened from 8086 ->286 -> 386 ->486 -> Pentium The last big change was going 64 bit and that was around 1999. Now it's a matter of transistors per area, clock rate, and cost to fabricate that area. (You can't discount the importance of that third parameter, because you have to recoup the cost of a REALLY expensive fab.) I'd rather Intel not spend money like crazy to guarantee that no one ever beats it on those first two parameters, because doing so would damage the third. If I were a pro, I would try to build a computer model looking at fab costs, expected speeds of processors, dollars per unit of processing power, etc. I bet you could find a spot in the model where Intel could be a few years behind TSMC in technology essentially forever and still make money. The fabs Intel would build, would be cheaper by not being as bleeding edge. Thus they could sell the product from that fab cheaper. Most people don't care what nanometer size the transistors in their CPU are, they want the processing horsepower. Intel might be able to sell more square area of silicon (more cores rather than higher clock rate) for less money because it's made on a cheaper process. Now if the management can't get out of their own way, none of this matters, so it's certainly not a sure thing...
Yeah, if I were you, I'd try and waddle on out of here like that. The truth hurts. Hey, look at the bright side, fat thing, at least you did not make up some lies this time about how I was blocking you and that is why you could not respond. LOL you pathetic fraudulent tool.
Oh I hear you Mr. Turtle. Never buy for the dividend. But I was liking the fact that it was in fact cheaper than it was in 1998, i.e. "dead money from 1999" as you say. So you are officially on record as it being a bad call to buy at these levels? Thanks Mr. Turtle!
Nice post engineering. Based on the couple of articles I read, Intel did something interesting it seems. They were behind on the fab tech. So its sounds like they used their existing fab tech to put on a single chip different kinds of cores, efficiency cores and performance cores. Doing that put them on part with (at least, in some cases ahead of) AMD in the performance based on their newest chip releases. It sounds like a "stop gap" measure, but that makes me wonder: 1. Why hasn't that kind of thing been done before? I mean, if its an affordable/effective way to get a [20%] performance enhancement, why did it take one company overtaking the other before either did it? 2. Will AMD do the same thing or something similar? If not, why not? 3. Will Intel keep doing it as it improves its fab process and shrinks its chips? If not, why not? I love the chip wars.
%% Good news first/ it bounced @ $25 last i looked Even though i have bought oil companies with low PE[ sold MPC this week.....]; INTC with a low PE of 12 or 13, they tend to go low + lower. NOT just that\ but YTD it lost money, on closing stock prices; plenty of ETFs + stocks made money YTD. Its also below 50 day moving average + moving lower. Not a prediction
LOL, yet another lie by fat thing. Fraud just runs in your blood. Well, along with the prodigious amounts of cholesterol I mean haha. Wait, maybe you were just confused. I should give you the benefit of the doubt, fat thing, you are easily confused after all. 3 was the number of injections of these bad boys you were going to take before noon! 5' here you come fat thing, 5' or bust!!!