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 215.32

-0.2%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Magrathea who wrote (219893)	12/10/2006 12:38:50 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) of 275872

>> I think these 3 assumptions are false. [1]Hans has already established that some parts of the K8 will not shrink with the node -- the ODMC is one he singled out. Therefor, Hans, and by extension, you, are supporting the idea that 65 nm will not bring the full extent of cost savings implied by a nominal 50% shrink. >> [2]Makes no sense. Let's assume a 90nm design fits 200 die on a wafer. And that it "yields" 80% good die at saleable specs....... Your computation is unrelated to my saying "implied in the expectation that conversion from 200mm 90 nm to 300mm 65 nm process brings 40% per piece cost savings, is the assumption that %-age yield is the same as 90 nm yield for un-shrunk part." >> But it makes ECONOMIC sense to start producing 65nm when you can yield >160 per wafer (at the same bin splits) which implies a yield of only 40%. only if you ignore cost of building (or converting) the fab. The $2.5B (or close to it), plus operating costs have to be paid from profits. But I think in the case of AMD they will be paid from government subsidies and stock sales. >> [3] Why should new parts on a new process be expected to be better than an older process tuned with the experience hundreds of thousands of wafers? Again, if you expect that the 65 nm part will reduce cost (and therefor improve margin), it has to bring in sufficient ASP to maintain or improve margin. If the 90 nm top bins were fetching $1000/each, and the top 65nm bins are fetching $300/each, the only way to maintain or improve margin is to increase volume substantially. >> What the heck is meant by "Mature Yields" anyway? Beats me. I expect it implies some version of "good". In the hierarchy of bragging terms, I think it is below "world class".

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next