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 (116630)	6/20/2000 12:05:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571172

Elmer, Yes you are off on some of the numbers but it's nice to see someone here who has a clue about manufacturing. Manufacturing is what they do in the Fab, right? As for yields, you know I can't give you exact numbers but I will say they are very good and they have always been very good and there has never been a yield problem since introduction except in the mind of some of the AMDolts. Yields are great at 600MHz. How about the yields at 900+ MHz? No need to reply the standard answers. ;^)) Scumbria

To: Elmer who wrote (116630)	6/20/2000 9:03:00 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571172

Re: no Fab is dedicated 100% to CuMine nor is it 100% .18u Good Morning Elmer, With the exception of the 1 million per day FAB, I was estimating 50% of the output of the other FABs to be Coppermine or Celeron II (which would have to be .18, of course). At "all .18 all the time" capacity would have (very roughly) been 8 million parts per week at an 80% yield. The 12 million was 40% of 30 million. If Intel is cranking out 30 million CPUs per quarter and 60% are expected to be .25 parts (from the realworldtech article - is that way off?), then only 40% (or 12 million) can be .18 I think there just about has to be some yield problem at some stage of production. It's not just those rough maximum possible estimates I made. You, PB, and of course Paul clearly expected a flood of .18 parts last fall, then over the holidays, and again this spring. It never happened. All of you have contacts (or direct knowledge) who probably don't give you exact details but can paint a pretty clear picture. The last 9 months of wafers coming out of the FABs cannot have been meeting expectations. Whether problems have been turning up at final testing, packaging, initial wafer sort (hey, I don't know the details of this process, there are probably many other stages) they must be turning up somewhere. And they appear to unsolvable. It's reminiscent of AMD almost exactly a year ago when they went to a very fast L2 - both yields and binsplits went way down and they weren't able to correct it even after a year and many mask changes. Between a new FAB coming on line, the new parts taking up less wafer space than the old one, and the end of the necessity for manufacturing external cache chips, Intel shouldn't be in a FAB space crunch unless there are yield problems. Sorry, Dan