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: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (90058)	1/27/2000 4:12:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Kevin Re <<is Intel still holding to the ORIGINAL .18u Coppermine ramp schedule, or was that modified due to the problems Intel had early on?>> I have a feeling you will hear from PB on this one. Maybe I should give it a try. Mani "I stand by official statements that every thing is according or ahead of schedule. Ramp is going fine. Demand is just too great. I can not say more due to restriction of a NDA. :)" PB

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (90058)	1/27/2000 4:15:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Re: "So answer honestly--is Intel still holding to the ORIGINAL .18u Coppermine ramp schedule, or was that modified due to the problems Intel had early on?" I don't know what the original schedule was but it seems pretty obvious that the schedule slipped. I don't know any more than that. The second part of the discussion has been that it is assumed that if Intel is not ramping at the pace desired by their customers, then the only explanation is a yield problem. That's foolish. I can think of many possible limitations that have nothing to do with yields. EP