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 (106764)	4/19/2000 2:16:00 AM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574098

Petz, thanks for the explanation but the banner still does not make sense. If the sign says 1 million, then I would think it refers to 1 million "shippable" CPU's per week run rate. Not just 1 million "good" unpackaged die. My point is that the 1 million good CPU per week made no sense at the time based on available info and Elmer insisted on it. He also implied that Intel is doing 4 times that (4 million /week) since Intel has 4 more fabs at 0.18. He said, "do the math". Well I did the math and it was clear that it was BS. Mani

To: Petz who wrote (106764)	4/19/2000 5:35:00 AM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1574098

Re: "So, we start with 3 million theoretical CuMines per week. Cut that to 2.5 million because MOST weeks aren't that good. Cut that to 1.5 million becuase of the PACKAGING PROBLEM. CUt htat to 1 million because of BAD BIN SPLITS. So Elmer probably wasn't lying or misinterpreting the sign. The problem lies elsewhere. Furthermore, the fact that Intel can only occasionally get 1 million working CPU's out of 10,000 wafers is really proof that the yields SUCK big time, not that Elmer was lying or misinterpreting the sign." First off, I didn't report the sign. Someone else did and I simply went there and looked for myself and confirmed what someone else posted. As for the rest, nice try John but wrong on most accounts. I can't quote numbers but you are completely wrong about yields overall, assembly yields and binsplits. No comment on the other numbers. Do not pay any attention to what Mani claims as he is completely clueless. You are closer to the mark than he is. EP