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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (55925)	9/29/2000 6:57:37 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

carl: Part of the reason Timna was killed and why RDRAM still has a small market share. The basic premise is that efficient silicon wafer utilization is demanded during this period of manufacturing capacity shortage. Intel needs to make the most money with the least amount of silicon period. This bodes poorly for lower value added circuitry like video, embedded RAM and I/O being combined on microprocessor die. If silicon wafers were in surplus, embedded DRAM, Timna and even value priced RDRAM will be more plausible. Semiconductor manufacturers with lower cost structures like VIA, Micron, and AMD have been hammering away at Intel merciless for months and are taking their toll. john eetimes.com "Intel planned to make Timna in a 0.18-micron process, would have consumed more silicon than Celeron manufacturing. "That would have created a situation of using more silicon to create fewer products, which is not good particularly when Intel is in a capacity-constrained situation," McCarron said. "Intel was explicit about saying that in their next [0.13-micron] process, Timna would have been die positive [consuming less silicon for more products]. But given Intel's position in the market today, Intel would have used more silicon to manufacture its cheapest product."