doug, Re: <TGP, please re-read dumb-$'s posts to me, with an eye to tone, before playing morality moderator.>
OK. My comments are Bold
#####
Post 1, From Petz to doug. <90nm Semprons> This seems to be evidence to me that 90nm is not giving much clock scaling. Else why on earth would AMD have to sell budget 90nm chips? I suspect it may be 3 or more months before 90nm frequency exceeds 130nm, just like Intel.>
Post 2, from Doug to Petz < Petz, if you have the choice of turning a 130nm Newcastle (144mm^2) into a Sempron 3100+, or a 90nm Winchester (84mm^2) into a Sempron 3100+, which would you choose?>
=========
Seems to imply smaller die size has something to do with choice of final product. I'd like more explanation.
=========
Post 3, dumbmoney to doug Petz, if you have the choice of turning a 130nm Newcastle (144mm^2) into a Sempron 3100+, or a 90nm Winchester (84mm^2) into a Sempron 3100+, which would you choose?
I would sell each chip for the highest price possible, but evidently you have some other strategy in mind.
=========
Sounds reasonable to me.
=========
Post 4. doug to dumbmoney < Having a full product line, including value parts, is also of value to OEMs. That said, I'm sure they would allow Sempron 3100+ shortages before they would sacrifice too many A64 sales.
My point still stands.>
=========
Ok, I can live with that, but what was your point?
=========
Post 5. dumbmoney to doug.
My point still stands.
Your point seemed to be that AMD should price its chips based on the die size, irrespective of the value to customers. At least, that's the only way I could make sense of your post. >
=========
Pretty close to my interpretation of post 2. Seems to imply lower current cost for 90Nm working product than for 130 NM. That's a point I dispute.
=========
Post 6. doug to DM < Here's a hint: think about the cost difference between a 90nm part at 84mm^2 and a 130nm part at 144mm^2.
Does that help you?>
===========
Didn't help me. I still doubt the final cost of finished 90Nm product is less than final cost of finished 130Nm product. In point of fact, I think DMs point of post 3, I would sell each chip for the highest price possible, but evidently you have some other strategy in mind. holds. Seems to me you're getting a little sarcastic. Sort of like a WBMW on the AMD side.
Very Raggy.
============
Post 7. DM to doug. Here's a hint: think about the cost difference between a 90nm part at 84mm^2 and a 130nm part at 144mm^2.
Does that help you?
Yes, it confirms that I interpreted your post correctly. You believe that since 90nm chips cost less to produce, AMD should sell them for less, even if they are worth more.
===========
That's about the interpretation I put on your posts. I dispute that. I also didn't think DM's tone was abusive.
===========
Post 8. Doug to dm < Nope. Given that AMD must sell X Sempron 3100+ parts, how would you like them to be produced?
Would you like to slow down the 130nm --> 90nm conversion, and produce them more expensively on 130nm?
Or start making them out of 90nm Winchesters, instead of 130nm Newcastles?
I'm beginning to understand your username...>
============
At this point I'd like to question why you think AMD must sell X Sempron 3100+ parts. Is that a management demand, a customer demand, or simply a debating point?
I also question your assertion, in the second paragraph that their production, at this point, would be more expensive on 130Nm -- while agreeing that production on the smaller size may make sense for other reasons.
But it was the fourth paragraph I objected to. Pure agression I find not called for in any of DM's posts.
<bi>I'm beginning to understand your username..
The only reason I bothered to post.
===========
Post 9. Me to Doug < Doug, Re: <I'm beginning to understand your username...>
Kindly cut that out.
Re: <Would you like to slow down the 130nm --> 90nm conversion, and produce them more expensively on 130nm?>
The die cost of production at the wafer level is around 1/3 the cost of the packaged product. I defy you to prove to me -- actually I'd settle for illustrate the likelyhood -- that AMD's 90Nm final product is, at this point, less expensive to produce than their 130 Nm product.
That certainly doesn't mean I'd advocate slowing down the conversion. You learn to do things well by doing them and in the Semi Biz. that means production processes may advance before they're fully economically profitable.
I think that's what we're seeing here and I hope -- and think -- it's beginning of life problems.>
=============
Post 10, the one I'm responding to.
Doug, Re: < TGP, please re-read dumb-$'s posts to me, with an eye to tone, before playing morality moderator.>
Above I posted the whole interchange. Still think you're more harsh than DM.
Re: <As of November 1, yes, I think it is clear that 90nm final product will be cheaper than 130nm final product.>
Will be isn't is and doesn't seem, to me, to validate your
assertive question, from post 2, < Petz, if you have the choice of turning a 130nm Newcastle (144mm^2) into a Sempron 3100+, or a 90nm Winchester (84mm^2) into a Sempron 3100+, which would you choose?>
So, I'll ask you directly, why do you think AMD is using it's next generation process to produce loss-leaders?
Re: <But another important issue is that Sempron 3100+ should be a big volume seller, and continuing to product that on 130nm doesn't help AMD get their lines converted to 90nm.>
Ok, that makes sense -- provided that Sempron 3100+, only a brand name, can be most easly and cheaply produced, in relative terms -- cost to selling price-- on 90Nm (as opposed to all the other selling products).
To me, the fact that they're dedicating test and packaging costs to Sempron indicates problems.
I think that was the point of Post 3, from DM to you.
-tgp |
