Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) 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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

AMD 214.93

+0.7%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: burn2learn who wrote (78634)	4/28/2002 11:39:52 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) of 275872

The question I want answered is why can’t AMD match Intel for die yields. What are the aspects to the differences in defect density and bin split performance that they can’t figure out? Maybe it’s as simple as they allow for significant litho related losses to maintain competitive on speed. Maybe with the design changes and constant process improvements to gain speed they don’t prioritize sustaining? You guys do assume it’s magical and just happens, speed comes from process improvements as well as design fixes. The process engineers must be experiencing shell shock, or just plain numb at this point. I think much could be gained in assuming ELMER’s numbers are right and trying to get the answers to why, or thought to prove / disprove. Forget what Intel does, question only AMD’s performance. B2L, I agree. I don't think we should try to compare AMD to Intel because no one has presented any data to accurately calculate Intel's defect density. I think the most reasonable explanation for AMD's low yields is not high defect density at all but binsplit. The design ran out of gas and AMD can't get very many parts at a marketable speed. That's the best explanation to cover all the facts. The slower parts are scrapped. Plain and simple. It doesn't require any mysterious rise in defect density or other fab issue. AMD's process is fine. It's the design that's the "problem", for lack of a better word. The .13u transistors on their .18u process was the first giveaway. They were pulling every single rabbit out of their fab hat just like Intel did with CuMine. P4 is running away from Athlon because it's a better design, just like Athlon ran away from CuMine. What would have happened to Intel's "yields" if the reverse had happened and AMD had all the fab capacity and Intel had a single modest fab and poor CuMine binsplits? Intel would have had millions of parts too slow to sell. We'd be looking at the fab output and wondering what the problem was. So my guess is that AMD's .18u process is healthy and probably always has been. As for their .13u process, well that's another story. EP

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next