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: dale_laroy who wrote (33561)	3/26/2001 7:41:04 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

The most straight forward explanation would be that IBM is signed on as a potential foundry, and AMD is providing IBM with the artwork for the Athlon/Duron and paying them to optimize these designs for the IBM foundry process. Or maybe it is chipsets that IBM could become a foundry for, same basic hypothesis. Isn't it more likely that AMD will use IBM's SOI wafer production technology? -fyo

To: dale_laroy who wrote (33561)	3/26/2001 10:50:16 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 275872

The most straight forward explanation would be that IBM is signed on as a potential foundry, and AMD is providing IBM with the artwork for the Athlon/Duron and paying them to optimize these designs for the IBM foundry process. I doubt IBM would be involved in any redesign of an AMD part. Most likely, IBM will provide everything AMD needs to design in a IBM SOI process and IBM will fabricate. I had thought that IBM intended to keep all the SOI stuff in house. This would be the first non bulk foundry type agreement. I guess they want to try to move SOI into the mainstream. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: dale_laroy who wrote (33561)	3/27/2001 8:51:25 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"The most straight forward explanation would be that IBM is signed on as a potential foundry" Using IBM as a foundry would be the most straight forward explanation, as you note. However, a blue sky, not very likely explanation, would be for AMD to use the same technique that implemented the x86-64 instruction set, to implement a PowerPC one also for Apple. This would give Apple a way to transition to 64 bit x86-64 and be able to use their old code base... I dunno if the PowerPC instruction set and resource requirement is close enough to x86-64 to be possible. But it is interesting.