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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (28325)	2/13/2001 3:21:32 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I'm not sure he really has a point to make at all, quite frankly. I think he's just making a downgrade and trying to sound like he knows something about semiconductor fabrication (which he doesn't). He's clearly doing a very back of the envelope calculation based on little or no data... and he's assuming that double the die size equals half of the yield. If fab info and chips shipped are not that closely guarded, please point me to a link or magazine article or news story or something that goes into that kind of detail... because I sure haven't seen it. You can get a good idea of die per wafer from the die size of a product... given... but getting WSW on a specific process, on a specific process, from a given fab is difficult if not impossible. You've also got to remember that while Intel has multiple fabs running 0.18 micron... some of them do not run 0.18 micron exclusively... some are still running 0.25 micron for chipsets ... some also run flash processes... and then there is the product split for 0.18 micron... I know of at least four products that Intel is running on 0.18 micron: Coppermine (P3), Willamette (P4), Cascades (large cache P3 Xeon), and Merced (Itanium). There may also be chipsets running on 0.18 micron as well as early McKinley (Itanium 2) starts... Bottom line is this individual has taken a couple of incorrect assumptions as foundation, and cobbled a p*ss-poor analysis on top of it...