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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (127309)	2/13/2001 3:41:27 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

...implement .13 while improving the yields in order to make p4 as cost effective as pIII by the end of the year. 300mm would make it less of an issue... You're clearly the target audience for these hack analysts who know nothing about semiconductor fabrication... 1) There is no credible evidence anywhere that indicates P4 yields are bad... 2) The article in question assumes because the P4 die is twice is big... it's yield is half that of the P3... which is an invalid assumption... even if it was a valid assumption, shrinking the die to the size of the P3 (which 0.13 micron does) would eliminate the alleged source of yield loss. 3) 300 merely increases the number of die per wafer... it doesn't improve yield which is good die as a function of total possible good die/wafer. If you, however, have matched yields on a 200mm vs. a 300mm process, Intel has indicated you realize a 30% cost per die savings. This will improve Intel's margins handsomely.

To: AK2004 who wrote (127309)	2/13/2001 3:47:10 PM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I have a question though, if they are right about yields and size ratios between p4 and pIII (am I using greek and roman correctly?) then intel needs to implement .13 while improving the yields in order to make p4 as cost effective as pIII by the end of the year. 300mm would make it less of an issue..... Regards -Albert That scenario would be based on the assumption that the semiconductor market will suddenly go back to the sales levels of last year. As has been previously stated, the semiconductor market has slowed down, and it seems that intel will have plenty of capacity to meet it's output goals, regardless of whatever the yields on P4 vs. P3 are. A fact conveniently ignored by CFSB. Also, since P4 is currently on 0.18u, and commands a price premium over P3, there is no need for it to be as "cost effective" as P3 at this time. And as you say, your "yield and size ratios", scenario is based on "IF". Semi