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: Goutam who wrote (83997)	12/22/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 1572956

Goutama, <If mobo supply can catch up with 100% K7 scenario then it would be better if they drop K6x entirely (except the mobile ones).> For all practical purposes AMD would have to continue supporting K6 for another quarter or two in lapto and even desktop segments. What I am suggesting is a ramp down to 2-3Mu level. <If not, it is better to keep utilizing the excess Fab25 capacity. Mind you that all CPU wafer starts will be in 180nm by the end of current quarter. This gives 3X additional FAB25 capacity in Q1'00 for K7s (close to 3M K7s!) assuming the same rate of Q1'00 K6Xs as in this quarter.> First of all I do not buy the excess capacity theory. Pricing is a great tool to ensure supply and demand matchup with each other. I think the problem is infrastructure. Also, from what I gather K7 yields at a rumored 70%+ are over K6 yields. So, I can easily see a situation where AMD can make 2-3Mu K6s and 3-4Mu K7s - IF THAT IS WHAT AMD WANTS TO DO. <I doubt if mobo volume can exceed 3M units in Q1'00.> This is what I am hammering away at. Though I do not know how many systems can be enabled, I have a problem believing that AMD cannot enable 3-4Mu motherboards in Q1 if they set their mind to it. (which I get a feeling that they are not given all the talk about K6-2s living into 2001) I would consider it a shame if AMD cannot way beyond 2Mu Athlons for Q1. Let's see. Chuck