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: Petz who wrote (86420)	1/10/2000 3:37:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1573222

Re: "But if even one fab, let alone four, were 100% on 0.18 process, it would be more than 10% of wafers." I believe the .18u process came up on a smaller fab. EP

To: Petz who wrote (86420)	1/10/2000 9:48:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573222

Petz - < But if even one fab, let alone four, were 100% on 0.18 process, it would be more than 10% of wafers.> Petz, * - When new fabs start production, they never do it at full capacity. The logistics of doing this for "Mega" fabs are prohibitive. It generally takes a matter of something ~ several months or a year or so once production gets going to ramp to full capacity. Two of the fabs are in this category. * - Two of the fabs are considered "mixed use" development fabs, i.e., they are developing and running other processes and products at the same time they are ramping .18. Neither of these fabs were .25 production Logic fabs, BTW. * - One of the fabs is running some .25 production while ramping .18. However, this transition its .25 allocation was transistioned to another facility a long before the .18 ramp. I am familiar with this particular transistion, and I am convinced that the .18 ramp in this fab shouldn't have produced a .25 shortfall of any meaningful consequence, except possibly to the second order. I've been about as detailed I can be. If you ask me for more specifics, I won't answer. One thing that has impacted the ramp more than anything, is the original 1-2 month (depending on how you look at it) delay announced in Sept. As far as my take on the .25 shortages, my belief is that capacity is just what INTC mgmgt. inferred at the beginning of the quarter; it's maxed out. smoothly transitioning to .18 is now imperative, as its smaller die sizes will help in this regard going forward. I going to chime the "demand is exceeding supply" thing again. PB