<<<<< At the time of the article, July 31st,2001, which happens to be 6 months ago, the utilization rate was 60% at the end of the quarter; which is a far cry from your guesstimate of 70% over the whole quarter; which means your figures are bogus.
-So the article dated July 31 said 60%. July 31 is the end of Q2, not Q3, if the article was saying 60% at the end of Q2, and Elmer was saying 80% by the end of Q3, and averaging 70% was his gesstimate for Q3. 60% at the end of Q2, 80% at the end of Q3, seems to average to 70% across Q3 which I though was Elmers statement. How does that make those percentage figures bogus?
If the yields are so bad, why wasn't one of Intels fabs named fab of the yr. by semiconductor international. Apparently this organization thinks AMD's yields not only are just fine and dandy, but the best in the world. And you want to denigrate that with bogus figures. Get real.
-So, it looked to me that the award was "being the first facility in the world specifically designed to produce microprocessors with copper interconnects", it doesn't say anything about yield on that process at all.
-I'm not saying Elmer's correct, but it seems like your statements seem to be equaling his, in the "stretch" department.
Semi |
