To: Elmer who wrote (113826 ) 6/2/2000 2:30:00 AM From: hmaly Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573482
Elmer RE...<<<<<<<<Ted, one thing is that AMD has absolutely ZERO process history to prove they can produce a highspeed low binsplit product. They need time and lots of wafers to establish a true baseline. They simply couldn't afford to waste enough wafers during the development process to establish longterm process baseline statistics.<<<<<< EP, one of the arguments you have made lately is that it has taken way too long to build the fab. Isn't it quite possible that AMD was establishing a baseline during the time you were complaining about. Maybe the stated reason for bringing Dresden online (not wanting to start paying loans and taxes) was just a ruse to give AMD enough time to validate .13 process in copper. Secondly as far as I know the manufacturing equipment installed there was capable of .13 at the get go, so why is it impossible to believe that at least some of the T-birds are indeed .13 um and are capable of 1.5 ghz, just like the german article states. Thirdly, AMD's stated roadmap of building all chips in Dresden and building flash in Austin (another thing you were complaining about) has changed to building T-birds in both Dresden and Austin and doing Durons in Austin; and building another flash plant with fasl.. Why the need for all of this capacity if the T-bird is a mediocre chip? At only 600 wpw and 150 chips/wafer, amd could produce 1.2 million chips /quarter in Dresden alone. At 2000 wpw, AMD could produce 4 mil. chips/q, which is 2 - 3 times current sales,and to get those sales without drastically killing prices, T-bird would have to be a blockbuster. That is the only thing that makes sense, and I am betting heavily on it.