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: kash johal who wrote (84912)	1/4/2000 11:35:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1572340

kash - <Or Intel has been LYING to the business community about its 0.18 capacity. Remember they have allegedly been "shipping" 0.18 since mid-year.> kash, Intel commenced shipments of Coppermines in October, not mid year, from three fabs, with a fourth that come on line subsequent to the launch. Do you understand the logistics and mechanics of what a ramp is? These fabs are not coming online at full capacity, they are ramping to full capacity, with "full" coming to fruition sometime late next year. Dixon QS's were shipping mid year from one fab, at something way less than full capacity. Nowhere do I recall Intel advertising this effort as a full blown capacity effort. It was something of a demonstration of .18 viability, as well as shipping a limited volume of Mobile product (which paid for itself BTW). I do not believe Intel has hid these facts from anybody. There is in fact a leaked document I've seen on the web (I don't remember where) that had bar charts of .25 vs. .18 capacity over time. Q4 was listed at ~10% .18 to 90% .25. Given this ratio, and using your own ballpark for total Intel unit capacity for the quarter, how many units do you come up with for .18? I'd give you a ballpark figure, but I'd better not, as it might be somehow misconstrued as real data. <They had stated at the October "launch" that 4 fabs were ramping the 0.18 coppermines.> See above. <Something is not right here and we all know it.> I don't think so, except that I do believe Intel is caught in a situation where demand is outstripping supply. And to be fair, the 2 month Coppermine delay didn't help this situation, but this has been more than disclosed. <We will find out pretty soon I guess.> Yes we should. I stand by all my statements w.r.t. yields and output, as general as they may be. BTW, I don't see the majority of analysts rushing out explicitly accusing Intel of lying about their production capacity or yields. In fact, didn't Morgan Stanley recently up estimates with a comment something to the effect that Intel is doing better than some people are speculating? PB

To: kash johal who wrote (84912)	1/4/2000 12:21:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1572340

Kash, <Either Intel has had DISMAL yield problems... Or Intel has been LYING to the business community about its 0.18 capacity.> I tend to belive that neither of this is true (if consider yields as purely manufacturing problem). I tend to belive that there continue to be problems with design. Why? Look at the Errarta E61: "Intermittent Failure to Assert ADS during Processor Power on". What does it mean when a processor fail to obey the basics - it's own bus protocol? Intermittently? My bet is that those freezing Dells in the market are just test escapes from inherently faulty design. Due to inherent process variability, some parts are able "to Assert ADS during Processor Power on" less intermittently, and pass. Likely the slower core timing relaxes the design fault, and "yield" at 500-600 is much better. And people like Tench, who are posting on investment forums around the clock, just have no guts nor experience to catch up the problem. Just a guess, as usual :) Unfortunately, sooner or later some technician will find the problem out, and AMD will face a tougher challenge in the marketplace... Regards, - Ali