Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 36.34

-0.1%

Dec 23 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: AK2004 who wrote (146510)	10/31/2001 4:32:48 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) of 186894

also added lehman that states that savings by the end of '02 is not going to be more than 7% Okay, I understand the numbers now and understand the sources of confusion: We don't have an apples to apples comparison, and Joseph makes one incorrect assumption which colors his analysis. I believe he also neglected to account for the increasingly P4-rich product mix. First the incorrect assumption from Joseph: he expected a 30-50% per die cost reduction from a shrink. This is a bad assumption for two reasons: It assumes a linear shrink of the P3 and P4 dies (which everyone knows didn't happen as both have 2X the cache in their 0.13 micron incarnations) and that the cost of a 0.13 micron wafer today is equal to the cost of a 0.18 micron wafer today (after 2 years of yield improvement and cost reduction). Just doesn't happen that way. The second source of confusion is that we're not doing an apples to apples comparison. I don't believe I'm saying this, but Niles actually makes things fairly clear in his report. All of the cost savings are reported in "average CPU Unit cost." Read that again: average CPU Unit cost. A lot of production is going to still be on 0.18 next year, and a higher percentage of production is moving to the larger P4 die. 300mm is also not going to represent 100% of the 0.13 volume in 2002 or 2003. Numbers for a 0.13 micron P4 on 200 and 300mm as compared to a 0.18 micron P4 are not presented. Joseph also seems to have missed the meaning of "average" in this context. The number Joseph is looking for (and commenting about) is the cost of a P4 on 200mm 0.18 micron vs. the cost of a P4 on 200mm 0.13 micron and 300mm 0.13 micron. That data was not presented. The 30% number per die Intel has discussed in the past is this type of number, and it's therefore understandable why Joseph would be confused. I just wish he'd obtained clarification before writing his report. The average cost per CPU numbers may be extrapolated to indicate that a 0.13 micron 200mm wafer is fairly expensive today, but that the cost savings and yield are there for 300mm. It's not going to mean as much to the bottom line this year, but it will mean a lot more in 2003 and 2004 as 200mm is phased out permanently for leading edge logic technologies.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next