Replies to post #37670 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[chipguy]

It was 12.3, IIRC.

Here's the numbers from Intel's reports:

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/IntelQ32006EarningsRelease.pdf

http://download.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/2006Q4_Earnings_Release_Final.pdf?iid=InvRel+Q406ea....

Q3: $3521m DEG + $2239m MOB = $5760 total MPU
Q4: $3855m DEG + $2668m MOB = $6523 total MPU

6523/5760 = 1.132 = +13.2%

Intel's ASPs did not need to be lower in Q4 2006 while Intel was selling high percentage of CPUs dual core, some of them market leading Conroes and Woodcrest - compared to Q4 of 2005 when Intel was selling single core and donkeys - at higher ASPs.

You're right. Intel could have priced its MPUs to generate
ASPs of $200, $500, or $1000+.

In turn its units sales might *fallen* 10%, 50%, or 90%
which would have caused fab under utilization charges to
skyrocket. The x86 MPU market has too much capacity
right now largely because of AMD's megalomaniacal
expansionist plans. In such a market Intel did its best
to balance revenue and profit. It's quite obvious from Q4
results that it did a far better job of this than AMD even
setting aside the gargantuan blunder of buying ATI. :-P

AMD rolled the dice on a bet-the-company strategy and
in Q4 it came up snake eyes. You and mas go cry on
each shoulders over your folie a deux fantasy world that
isn't.