SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Charles Tutt who wrote (37883)2/14/2000 11:53:00 PM
From: Tony Viola  Respond to of 74651
 
Charles, I think you're missing the point. The issue is not whether Intel ships more microprocessors than the others, but whether
the others have sufficient volume that they are high on the learning curve, so that their costs and yields are not
dramatically different from Intel's. I contend they do.


I don't think so. Intel will bring up a process in one 2 billion dollar fab until yields are to their standards. They can then transfer the process to 4 or 5 other fabs, they call it copy exact, at very little incremental cost compared with the first fab. Most other companies are stuck forever at the one fab and it's inherently high onesy cost to write down. Intel calls it called SHV, standard high volume. Nobody can come close to them in cost per chip.

Tony



To: Charles Tutt who wrote (37883)2/15/2000 4:53:00 AM
From: Steve Lee  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74651
 
Noone else is as high on the learning curve as Intel. The scale economies come into play even at Intel's size and above. This is even more so in the comparisons you make. The likes of IBM & TI make so many different silicon products compared to Intel that their design, set up and production costs per square inch of silicon are way above Intel's level. How many foundries does TI have? How many does Intel have?