Petz, Re: "If chips are being delivered in early June, production probably began in March."
If you are correct that AMD began production in March, then under the worst case scenario, they needed a full stepping, as opposed to a metal layer stepping, which would have been quicker. While wafers with base layers can be made beforehand in a metal layer stepping, thus cutting down fab time by 2 or 3 weeks, full steppings will take the full 6-8 weeks to complete. And then there is test and sort, packaging, and SV/CV. All and all, it's a process that can take 2 to 3 months, but that seems like a worst case to me. It suggests that the changes that AMD needed to employ in Thoroughbred were more than simple speed path fixes, and that isn't so good at this stage in the game. But, if you want to justify it that way, and claim that AMD always intended for a March ship date, then go ahead and mince words. The way I look at it, it seems that AMD wanted to ship .13u processors in December of last year, which represents a 6 month delay if they end up shipping in June instead. It makes sense because in December, they would have been able to make use out of .13u parts to remain ahead of Intel. Instead, they allowed Intel to get about 3 processor speed grades worth of performance ahead of them, and I don't see how you can argue that this was part of the original plan.
You see, I don't care to exaggerate. AMD's execution should be obvious without me having to point it out. But it still seems that some people have trouble believing that AMD is behind schedule at all on their product releases. I'll go ahead and point it out to them, and then I'll expect a half dozen people asking me if I've lost my mind, or if I'm ignorant of the whole manufacturing process. No, and no, to both questions. Sorry, but as an AMD investor, I don't like it either, but I won't try and make up justifications for AMD to make myself feel better. They just messed up, plain and simple, and I'll have to wait and see if they fix things by June 10th.
wbmw |
