Re: 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.
Joe, you must be mixing up several different conversations. Your earlier objection was that Intel was selling $30 Celeron chips, but the fact was that they were only selling one such chip, the 310, and that happens to be a chip that has long since fallen "below the threshold of what is sellable in the market place," as I said. The other chips you mention that clock to 3GHz are irrelevant, since everything above the 310 is selling for the list price that Intel has placed on it.
Re: 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.
You are not understanding what I am saying, and I thought it was clear. What you described earlier as "single core Netburst die" - at least in the context of inventory, which was our topic of discussion - is composed of parts that are sellable, because they are currently on the price list and used in systems on the market, and those that are not sellable, because they are below even the slowest chip on the price list. Downbinning has nothing to do with it, since the chips in inventory have already had their multiplier permanently set by the factory. A 2.13GHz Celeron will always be 2.13GHz, even if it runs faster, and even if Intel has a need for something faster. So all those 2.13GHz Celeron 310 parts in inventory cannot be upgraded, so they are sold as-is, for a price that will at least get them out the door. And $30 sounds pretty good when they are essentially worth $0.
Re: 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.
If you recall, a dual core Presler is nothing more than 2 single core Cedar Mill die. It does not make sense, therefore, to do what you are suggesting. Intel's 65nm process needs to ramp so the factories are operational when it comes time to manufacture Core 2 Duo. For this reason, the only process that makes sense to throttle back is the 90nm process. And Intel said they would do this in Q2 to enable their customers to work through about 10 days of inventory.
Re: 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
As I have already said before, Intel is not making more chips that they cannot sell. They are only making chips that they can sell. Why do you keep returning to this strawman?
Re: Core Duo, while a great chip, and becoming more visible, is still not bringing home the bacon than many (especially you) expected.
I went to Best Buy today, and you know what I saw? The majority of laptops there had Core Duo in them. I thought that retail would be the last place for Core Duo to ramp up, so I was impressed. It certainly tells me that this chip is ramping quite a bit faster than many (especially you) expected.
Re: Do you think all of this is priced in, planned, guided and accounted for? I am not as sure as you are.
Joe, many of the things you are bringing up here are nonsense. You are claiming that Intel is intentionally manufacturing parts that they intend to sell for peanuts, all based on a websearch of the Celeron 310. First of all, do you see any OEMs selling Celeron 310? I don't think so. It only exists in the channel, because that's the only place the grey market will sell to. Intel is not manufacturing the Celeron 310. They are not downbinning parts to compete with Via. They are not adding to inventory instead of reducing it. They are not doing any of the things you claim, so your conclusion at the end of this is bogus.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
