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: hmaly who wrote (104946)	4/13/2000 7:43:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571236

Re: "Elmer, if you cut out the bulsh*t; the answer you are trying to give is Intel has not increased production 50 -90% on any chip." Just what is it about this statement that you don't understand? "It is not physically possible for Intel to increase sales by 50-90%" Re: "What unused fab? Dresden hasn't opened yet" A classic statement, certain to be quoted again and again!!!! Are you trying to win the dumb statement of the year award? Re: "Also from conference call tonight, Amd sold 1.2 million athys ; AMD produced 1.4 million Athys" AMD had 200K left over from Q4. So that means that they have an additional 200K left over from Q1 for a total of 400K unsold Athlons. For the arithmetically impaired that's 200K+1.4Meg-1.2Meg = 400K, meaning that demand is not that great at the same time the competition is sold out, unless you can come up with a better explanation. An unused fab (after 3 1/2 years unopened=unused.... daaaaaah). Re: "Yeah right Elmer. You certainly have a lot of nerve trying to say AMD's has a yield problem considering Intels glorious record the last 2 quarters. The bottom line is AMD produced 6.4 million chips from one fab. Intels number of chips/fab is far less than that. " This is an ignorant statement. The facts speak for themselves. Intel has and does produce as many a 1 million CuMines from a single fab in one week when not even full capacity is devoted to CuMines. The yield problems are a fantasy of the AMDolts. Re: "Of course; Intel switched capacity from PIII to Coppermine, and Intel was producing far more PIIIs back in the 3q-99 than Intel is producing Cuppermines now. Plus a die shrink from .25 to .18 should have resulted in a 30% increase of production; not a decrease if yields were good. Combine that with the fact that Enterprise sales were slow in Jan and Feb. " Another ignorant statement. Intel doesn't convert a fab over to a new process 100%. There are still many millions of Katmai processors and Celeron processors being manufactures in the same fabs. Why not wait for the earnings announcement next week to see how many processors they sold? I think you'll find the numbers make the Athlon volumes look pretty anemic and your statements look pretty dumb. Re: "Intels claims of "demand is high; yield are good." are laughable; plus they seem to substantiate that you are indeed a liar" Your statements show you are ignorant of the facts and have a poor understanding of the subject. I am not knocking AMD here because they had the best quarter in their history and deserve credit. I'm knocking you for making ignorant statements. EP

To: hmaly who wrote (104946)	4/13/2000 10:53:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1571236

hmaly, <..die shrink from .25 to .18 should have resulted in a 30% increase of production; not a decrease if yields were good.> Die shrink from .25 to .18 theoretically leads to half of the die area, therefore the output is expected to increase by 100%. If during the 0.25 era Intel was not "capacity constrained", it means that with more or less successful 0.18 shrink there is no way to be capacity constrained. That idiot Elmer do not understand that for Intel to be "capacity constrained" at this stage unanimously means serious problems with Intel's 0.18 P-III technology to get into the "sweet" MHz spot. With this kind of word spins we can say that AMD also was "capacity constrained" with K6 at 550MHz. We know the results. Regards, - Ali