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: Mani1 who wrote (85453)	1/6/2000 2:50:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572533

Mani - <the big issue remains supply: Few of the 800-MHz Pentium IIIs have hit the market. Sales representatives at Dell Computer state it will take customers roughly a month to get a system with the chip,> I have commented on the issues surrounding the 800's in great detail the last few days. I agree with the above statement. It is not inconsistent with what is going on, i.e., Intel is now releasing / announcing products much earlier in the production cycle, a la AMD style. I gave AMD competitive MHz pressure for this in my posts. Intel itself indicated availability of the parts will be limited. There is nothing that has not been disclosed, or that is inconsistent with how I see things going on, with the above statement / situation. Point me to 733 shortages. PB

To: Mani1 who wrote (85453)	1/6/2000 11:05:00 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 1572533

Re:"You claim to stand by all your statements that ramp was ahead of schedule, bin splits are great...rah rah rah. I stand by my statement that looking at the available signs those make no sense. Not even close!! Very few coppermines 9 WEEKS after the launch." In my experience, targets are often set based on what production people think can be done and not necessarily on what is needed. No one wants to miss a target and become an instantaneous scapegoat. Clearly, there is a shortage of Coppermines, especially at the high end. Likely, too few wafers were started possibly because individual fab managers wanted to see good yields before they committed large quantities of wafers. Maybe the yield targets were somewhat low given a new process and the bin split targets not very aggressive. With an incorrect low projection on final chip requirement, the wafer starts/yields/bin splits might all have been met. My guess is they started too few wafers although the yields might have been near or at target. I do believe they were not nearly aggressive enough on channel length and thus there is a large shortage of the fastest parts. Probably, whoever has the call on the gate poly target was a bit too conservative and perhaps got cold feet. If this process eventually gets them to 1GHz, it should not be a significant risk at 800MHz. There is still a lot of human nature at work here. If you are aggressive and are right, you are a hero. But, if you are aggressive and wrong, generally, you get your head handed to you. Clearly, mistakes were made. In the end, Intel will have to own up to them and correct them or risk loss of additional business to AMD. THE WATSONYOUTH