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: Elmer who wrote (106796)	4/19/2000 12:13:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573954

Elmer: If I am off the mark, and I have yet to see where, (I gave Intel the benefit of the doubt), PROVE IT! Show me What the real NUMBERS are. From that analysis, from PUBLICLY released information, Intel is getting poor yields. Let's take it from the other direction. 1) From your message, Intel shipped at least 10 million Coppermines in Q1. 2) Yields are fine. I take this to mean, 1 shippable CPU for every 2 die, minimum. 3) Thus 10,000,000 * 2 die equals 20,000,000 die in Q1. 4) From public information, greater than 300 die fit on a wafer. (If there is less, tell me the correct number) 5) Thus, at most, 67K 0.18 micron wafers were used for CPU shipped Q1. 6) There are 14 weeks in Intel's Q1. 7) Thus on an average 5K 0.18 micron wafers were processed. 8) To get 1,000,000 CPUs from one plant at week 7, that plant had to process between 3.3K and 6.7K wafers that week. 9) Thus that plant should be able to supply 8 million good CPUs from week 7 to week 14. If it did not, this goes contrary to all statements of "We are supply constrained". 10) From week 1 to week 6, it is at worst linear from zero to rate at week 7. Thus that plant should have produced 3 million more CPUs for a grand total of 11 Million. 11) I will make an assumption here: Intel shipped no more than 15 Million Coppermines in Q1. 12) All other plants produced, at most, 4 Million Coppermines for Q1. 13) Given 50% yield, they processed in Q1 27K wafers. 14) At 50% conversion end of Q1 per CC and assuming 0% conversion at beginning of Q1, (believe this to be worse case), they can only produce 4K 0.18 wafers per week at end of Q1. 15) Thus capacity of Intel end of Q1 is 10K 0.18 wafers per week. 16) Thus total capacity of Intel is at most 20K wafers, any kind, per week. 17) Intel has about 3.3 times the current capacity of AMD Fab 25. NO WAY! 18) Intel claims to be able to process 60K wafers per week (10x AMD by all accounts). 19) Intel should be at 30K 0.18 wafers per week now. What are they doing with 20K 0.18 wafers per week? If 16 is true, Intel has been lying to investors for years. I take that it is not true and 19 is true. I also take that Intel had at least the capacity of 10K 0.18 wafers per week at beginning of Q1. Thus Intel had at most 25% Yield or binsplits that tossed at least 50% into the waste bin at a Mhz not able to be sold. Either way, things are "BAD". Pete

To: Elmer who wrote (106796)	4/19/2000 12:31:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573954

Read it and weep....btw Intel could not make a statement wrt Cumine volumes because I don't think they know what they are. ____________________________________________________________ Intel Shares Fall on Disappointing 2nd-Qtr Outlook Santa Clara, California, April 19 (Bloomberg) -- Intel Corp. shares fell as much as 6.5 percent after the No. 1 maker of computer chips said second-quarter revenue will be unchanged from the first as the company tries to keep up with demand. Intel fell 5 11/16 to 123 5/16 in midday trading of 25.4 million shares. Earlier, they touched 120 5/8. The stock, which has more than doubled in the past year, was the second-most active in U.S. markets. The company's first-quarter profit and sales rose on better- than-expected demand for personal computers, leading to shortages of some chips. Intel is sold out of some versions of its Pentium III microprocessors. Some analysts and investors said Intel's outlook for this quarter wasn't as rosy as they had hoped. ``Their outlook is underwhelming,' said analyst Drew Peck of SG Cowen, who rates the company a ``neutral.' ``People had assumed they would do better, especially with the accelerating demand for PC processors.' The company reported first-quarter earnings late yesterday. Profit from operations rose to $2.13 billion, or 61 cents a share, from net income of $2 billion, or 57 cents, a year earlier. Sales rose 13 percent, more than analysts expected, to $8.02 billion from $7.1 billion. Santa Clara, California-based Intel said it could have sold more chips if it had been able to make them, and it's working to improve supply. ``We are scrambling to catch up,' said Chief Financial Officer Andy Bryant. ``Demand is stronger than expected and we think we'll have a strong second half.' Transition SG Cowen analyst Peck said Intel is having trouble in its transition to make more of its chips using 0.18-micron technology, which etches thinner lines for each circuit. That could open the door for rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. to nab business. Intel said it has started switching five plants to the 0.18- micron technology, and expects to expand that to eight sites by the end of the year. That will help boost supply, as the thinner circuitry lets Intel get more chips from each silicon wafer. Intel has increased its capital spending budget for this year to $6 billion as it spends on more chipmaking equipment. Including a gain of $600 million, or 17 cents a share, for reversing a tax provision, first-quarter net income was $2.73 billion, or 78 cents a share. Earnings excluding $375 million of pretax acquisition costs and the gain were $2.47 billion, or 71 cents a share. On that basis, profit was forecast to rise to 69 cents, according to the average estimate of analysts from First Call/Thomson Financial. Apr/19/2000 11:49 For more stories from Bloomberg News, click here. (C) Copyright 2000 Bloomberg L.P. Any redistribution of Bloomberg content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Bloomberg L.P. Any reference to the material must be properly attributed to Bloomberg News. The information herein was obtained from sources which Bloomberg L.P. and its suppliers believe reliable, but they do not guarantee its accuracy. Neither the information, nor any opinion expressed, constitutes a solicitation of the purchase or sale of any securities or commodities.(C) Copyright 2000 Bloomberg L.P. BLOOMBERG, Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Financial Markets, Bloomberg Television, Bloomberg News Radio are trademarks, tradenames and service marks of Bloomberg L.P.