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: kapkan4u who wrote (37671)	4/27/2001 9:24:49 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

It is possible. I don't know which SOI is in Hammers IBM's or Moto's. It could have been IBM's from the start. If they switched to IBM at this late stage, it would be a very bad indicator to me. I don't believe it could have been originally designed in an IBM process. There would have to have been a much earlier signed agreement for that. I agree. It is very late in the game to switch. However, I have ZERO faith in Moto and would likely have sold out of AMD if it appeared they were counting entirely on Moto for SOI. What is interesting is that this Barton product is likely to be on the market at the same time as AMD's bulk .13um counterpart. Now, if AMD felt their bulk .13um product was competitive, they wouldn't need IBM. So the question is how much benefit will IBM's .13um SOI process have over AMD's .13um bulk process. My guess will be perhaps 20% (combining SOI with a somewhat tighter groundrule process) THE WATSONYOUTH

To: kapkan4u who wrote (37671)	4/28/2001 8:49:47 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

" If they switched to IBM at this late stage, it would be a very bad indicator to me." This might be the case. When the (minimal) details of the process were announced last year, it was described as a "Motorola-AMD" process without any mention of IBM. In addition, the thickness of the oxide indicated that it was done in situ instead of as a separate processing step (Hans DeVries posted something here about that, something about atomic windows). Now, there is some mention about an SOI process licensed from IBM. Now it might have been that way from the beginning... Edit: here is the link. Message 14782260