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: steve harris who wrote (126710)	10/23/2000 10:17:49 AM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 1578368

All: INTC's continuing FAB problems I don't know if everyone has been following this trail as I have but I think everyone should. INTC has two goals/problems for their production needs. First INTC needs to have FAB capacity dedicated to P4 production which requires specialized equipment and second INTC needs to move FABs to .13 micron and copper. To address the first issue INTC dedicated FAB space at their FAB in Israel to creating P4's and placed both of the steppers which are capable of yielding P4's well at this location. Now INTC apparently plans to move some or all of the P4's production to their FAB in Ireland which was also intended to be one of the first sites to move to .13 micron. So INTC will lose production at Qiryat-Gat while they make adjustments their and slow the transition to .13 micron at their Ireland FAB while they make adjustments their. In addition to this it had been indicated that the Community surrounding the Ireland FAB has protested INTCs expansion claiming they are polluting the air with too many emissions. At the very least this litigation will divert resources away from expanding the FAB there and it could possibly limit or even stop INTCs FAB expansion for some time. The second goal/problem is the .13 micron shift. As I mentioned above INTC plans on moving the fore mentioned Ireland FAB to .13 micron. In addition to this INTC had planned on opening a new FAB in Arizona which would be exclusively for .13 micron copper production and use 300mm wafers. Apparently plans for that FAB have been delayed due to a shortage of skilled construction workers in the Arizona area and that FAB will not open until 2002. So either INTC will have to transition another FAB to Copper during 2001 (a costly and time consuming process) or they will have to count on the Ireland FAB to produce all of their .13 micron production for 2001. As I mentioned before the Ireland FAB may itself be delayed due to the environmentalist protests and if that FAB is also the primary source of P4 production then the .13 micron shift could cost them P4 production and further aggravate INTCs inevitable problems meeting demand for that product. Finally their is an important thing to consider when looking at INTCs roadmap for .13 micron and that is that they plan on having 2 products introduced at .13 micron and they will definitely not have as much space available as they had originally planned. So either INTC will reduce Tualatin production in favor of the P4 on .13 micron or INTC will reduce .13 micron P4 production in order to produce Tualatin. Since INTCs stated plans are to keep the PIII as its mainstream offering into 2002 and the PIII is a much more mature design it is very likely that INTC will focus its production on .13 micron to producing Tualatin and continue to produce P4's mostly (or only) as a .18 micron part for 2001. That limitation should provide AMD with a great opportunity to stay competitive with the P4 in clockspeed (since they will move to .13 micron well ahead of INTC) and since Tualatin will not likely offer vastly superior performance to its CuMine brethren AMD should have no problem maintaining a performance lead of that chip by a significant margin. So in light of all of this evidence I am thinking AMD will have no problem keeping well ahead of INTCs mainstream offering and that the P4 will not realize its potential until very late in 2001 or possibly until 2002 (at which point it will face Sledgehammer). AMD should be able to position Palomino (follow-on to T-Bird) against the P4 at least as its slightly lower end counter part and Morgan (the next Duron) against the CuMine and later Tualatin and take strong margins on each chip. AMD may even decide to go with 256K cache on Morgan and 512K cache on Palomino while having 1MB and 2MB versions (Mustang) to compete with the Xeon which should eliminate any possibility of INTCs PIII offerings becoming anything other than low-mid range offerings. -NY_Gymkata ragingbull.altavista.com I think he's got some good points! Milo