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 (86329)	1/10/2000 4:00:00 AM
From: Goutam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573198

PB, However, GTW also said they were having a hard time obtaining BX boards, and GTW is a "BX shop". They would need a good supply of BX boards to ship Coppermine systems, as well as the .25 systems. I have no idea what is going on w.r.t. the BX issue. IMHO, I don't think BX chipset shortage is manufacturing related. I believe the BX chipset shortage was due to curtailment of its production. For this to make sense, you have to ponder on an assortment of different elements that are intertwined in a strange way - 820 chipsets, RAMBUS, Athlon motherboard ramp, higher BX chipset prices, BX vs 820 performance, etc. Goutama

To: Process Boy who wrote (86329)	1/10/2000 12:20:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573198

PB, <However, GTW also said they were having a hard time obtaining BX boards, and GTW is a "BX shop". They would need a good supply of BX boards to ship Coppermine systems, as well as the .25 systems. I have no idea what is going on w.r.t. the BX issue.> I thought we beat this one to death a few weeks back! Intel was ramping volumes on 820 when the whole thing blew up, worsening the supply/demand balance. In that sense VIA saved Intel's bacon! Chuck

To: Process Boy who wrote (86329)	1/10/2000 1:36:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573198

PB, please explain "At the moment there are .25 fabs, and .18 fabs" Previously you estimated that only 10% of wafer completions in the 4th quarter were 0.18 CuMine process, and that these completions started in the last 6 weeks of the quarter. From this you estimated that Intel should have shipped 2.5-3M CuMines in the quarter. But if even one fab, let alone four, were 100% on 0.18 process, it would be more than 10% of wafers. Or are you saying that two or more of the fabs that were producing CuMine at the 10% rate have now switched to 100% 0.18 process? Petz