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 (116619)	6/19/2000 11:15:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584218

Re: It's not unrealistic with a total capacity of close to 10,000 wafers per week... It's more than reasonable for 10,000 200mm wafers, it's to be expected, in fact, it's low: 100mm (radius) * 100mm (radius) * 3.14159 (pi) * .8 (edge and cutting loss) * .8 (intel's famous high yields) * 10,000 (wafers per week) / 106mm2 (area of a coppermine or celeron II) = 1,896,809 die per week per Superfab. It really should be closer to 2 million per week than one. And isn't Intel supposed to have two of those Superfabs and two additional .18 megafabs that build coppermines? And this was before the Israel fab dedicated to coppermines opened (it was supposed to be a flash fab, but when the crown jewels are in big trouble...). So start with 10,000 wspw (wafer starts per week) and add some part (half?) of 3 other very large fabs that are producing coppermines. So there should be something like half of two 5,000 wspw fabs plus the one above plus 6,000? from Israel plus half of 10,000 wspw from the other superfab = about another 3 million die per week giving a rough total of 5 million .18 die per week at .8 yields. That would result in 65 million chips per quarter at a .8 yield. It's no wonder that you and PB and pAUL kept telling use that AMD was going to get clobbered last fall, then right after New Years, then in the spring. But instead we are seeing 30 million Intel chips per quarter with 60% (according to realworld technology) of those still expected to come from the old .25 fabs through the end of the year so there are only 12 million good chips coming from those 81 million die. I guess that .8 yield estimate was off a bit. I'm sure that I'm off on some of these numbers, but the old story of yields being as good as in the old days doesn't seem to make much sense. So just how poor are Intel's yields? I think that my .8 is high - is it closer to .23? What's the cost of production if 4 Celeron IIs have to be fabbed to get one good chip? What do they sell for after discounts? Dan

To: Elmer who wrote (116619)	6/20/2000 12:52:00 AM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584218

Elmer - RE: "If memory serves me he said the sign said one million CuMine processors in ww08 (work week) or some such week. I confirmed the sign did in fact say that so you have 2 eye witnesses. Regardless of the sign, they do process 1 million CuMines from 1 fab at times. It's not unrealistic with a total capacity of close to 10,000 wafers per week from those huge fabs." Do you think that Arizona fab still continued to ramp up Cumines since then, or was that close to the max wafers alloted to Cumines?

To: Elmer who wrote (116619)	6/20/2000 2:39:00 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1584218

Elmer, I truly believe that Intel had one fab which produced 1 million functional CuMine die in one particular week of the current quarter. I think the fact that this happened is proof positive of one or more of the following: 1. Yields are extremely unpredictbale and don't average anywhere near that number for that particular fab. Intel is supposed to have one other fab of that size and 4-5 other fabs half that size making CPU's primarily. Yet they only made 2.2 megafabs worth of CPU's last quarter. 2. Even on a good week like that one, yields are not terrific, since if we assume 8000 wafers devoted to CPU production, they are only getting 125 "good" die per wafer, roughly 50% of the theoretical maximum. 3. The reason for lower output than expected may be packaging problems or poor bin splits causing many CPU's to be thrown away. Petz