Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Process Boy who wrote (70186)	8/29/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: Pravin Kamdar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572953

PB, I steadfastly maintain that Al is adequate for .18 interconnects. I believe AMD could have gone this route, but got sucked in by the Cu hype. They wanted Dresden to be built for copper from the get-go. Not just for 0.18u, but also for future shrinks. Why build a brand new magafab for aluminum, only to have to convert it for copper after a year? I think they did the right thing. Pravin.

To: Process Boy who wrote (70186)	8/29/1999 4:27:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572953

PB, <I do not see AMD having the resources to adequately maintain a path to 30% x86 profits.> This is a big stretch on your part. No one ever talked about 30% PROFITS, this is your own (paranoidal?) perception I guess. AMD was talking about achieving 30% UNIT share of x86 market, which may be different from the profit share you are so concerned about. If Intel would allow AMD to capture and sustain some share in the low-end market and be a little profitable, both companies may get into sort of socially reasonable equillibrium and Intel could maintain the same image of industry leadership and continue to attract suckers-rally investors. But Intel has decided to eliminate AMD by flooding the market with Celerons. I think it may trigger much bigger social resistance and may force AMD to undertake more aggressive tactics. I believe the K7 is the product that can allow AMD some room for manoeuvring. So, "stay tuned" (as you apparently are).

To: Process Boy who wrote (70186)	8/29/1999 5:04:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572953

Re: I do not agree with that strategy at all from a manufacturing stand point... My guess is that you are close to echoing a conversation between Atiq Raz and Jerry Sanders prior to Raz's resignation. And you are presenting Raz's side - wait a minute, is Process Boy a screen name for Atiq Raz? :-) But looking at the rest of your message, it may be that for a company that faces such an overwhelming competitor, the current strategy is the only one that stands a chance of success. Intel has demonstrated a real determination to knock AMD out of business, as shown when it slashed celeron prices to push the k6x processors out of the market. So just trying to develop a competitive product at a safe, moderate pace may not be enough for AMD. Motorola has been shipping volume copper SRAM since February using a process that supposedly has been made available to AMD. How similar is the fabrication of SRAM to that of a CPU? AMD seems to think that the Motorola process will serve them - is this a reasonable assumption? Or do CPUs and SRAM require substantially different FAB processes? My guess is that no one thought the Athlon was going to turn out as well as it did, and that it looked like aluminum .18 could never be enough to compete with Intel. As it has turned out, it probably is (at least temporarily) but as you pointed out, by mid 2000, Intel will have its next generation out. If, by then, AMD has volume copper at .18, that may be enough to really get ahead of Intel for awhile, without it, there isn't much of a chance. So, IMHO, AMD's present strategy may not be the best one, but it may the only one. Thanks for your comments. Dan