wbmw,
Now don't go changing the topic, Joe. We were talking about speed bins that have already fallen below the threshold of what is sellable in the market place.
No they have not. Don't be ridiculous. Prescotts bin just fine near 3 GHz. The problem (for Prescott) was that going higher was increasingly difficult, as power consumption became a major concern.
When you go below 3 GHz, the power consumption is just not a problem.
However, there are plenty of "single core Netburst dies" that are sellable in the low end segments, and for these, Intel absolutely ought to keep on manufacturing them, at least until a Core 2 Solo has had time to ramp.
Ok, then, downbinning Celerons all the way to 2.13 GHz, selling them for VIA like price of 37.99 is a deliberate strategy.
I agree in terms of performance, but the other issue is cost, and 65nm will be smaller in die size and therefore less expensive to manufacture.
And your point is? The 90nm dies are already manufactured, or making their way out of the over. They are sunk costs. 65nm wafer start is a fresh money to be spent. If inventory is a problem, Intel should stop 65nm wafer starts of single core Netburst die.
Blaming inventory problems for $37.99, while churning out more of the chips just like the ones that are supposed to be a problem (than needs to be liquidated) makes no sense.
Therefore, $37.99 is no accident, not a correction of anything. It is a deliberate strategy of Intel management, to keep unit market share at any cost.
Something has to give, IMO, when you well chips at ASPs of 1/5 of your normal ASPs, and you don't necessarily sell a lot of $4K Xeon MPs to compensate for it. Core Duo, while a great chip, and becoming more visible, is still not bringing home the bacon than many (especially you) expected.
Do you think all of this is priced in, planned, guided and accounted for? I am not as sure as you are.
Joe
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
