Elmer Re..It's called sarcasm.<<<<<<<<
So was mine. To always assume everyone is lying to you will get you nowhere. When Jerry and Hector said they were running at less than full capacity, you assumed they were lying. When Intel told you, demand for P4 was great, yields were great and their fabs were running at full capacity, you believed demand was great, yields were great, but Intel must be lying about running at full capacity, because then obviously, yields wouldn't be great with only 8 mil produced for 2 fabs. Whatever
Here's the difference, we know the capacity of Fab30, 5K WSPW<<<
Bully for you. You know what the listed capacity of Dresden is. Now tell us how many wafers AMD actually started to obtain that production of 5.5 mil cpu. Hector did say AMD was running at partial capacity, and were still producing more than they sold.
But you insist you can do it so please show us how you arrive at your conclusion that Intel has bad yields.<<<<<
Sure According to you and Jerry. AMD had production in 4q-01 of 5.5 mil cpu/quarter/ 1/2 fab.= 11 mil cpu/fab/q; assuming AMD produced at half capacity. Assuming you were being too generous, then AMD had 5.5 mil cpu/ 3/4 fab/q, = 7.33 mil cpu/fab/q.
Intel on the other hand had 8 mil cpu/2fabs/q = 4 mil cpu/fab/q. Even being generous and assuming AMD produced at 3/4 of capacity, instead of 50% as you believe, AMD still has almost twice the production/fab. That is why I said either Intels yields are bad, or its big die theory is resulting in poor production/fab. |
