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: milo_morai who wrote (38263)	5/3/2001 11:38:08 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

> What about IBM and UMC producing? IBM produces Hammers for AMD and UMC > produces Morgans and T-birds/Palominio's as well. The speculation to which you responded was actually a response to somebody suggesting that AMD doesn't need the extra sources of manufacturing. That is why my example did not count them as an option -- I was explaining that it is entirely possible for AMD to be unable to meet the 30% market share target using only the current fabs.     -JC

To: milo_morai who wrote (38263)	5/3/2001 11:53:09 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"What about IBM and UMC producing? IBM produces Hammers for AMD and UMC produces Morgans and T-birds/Palominio's as well." Not particularly promising. When was the list time you know of that IBM fabbed a processor for a vendor without getting a license to produce it under the IBM brand? Do you really think it would be a good idea to grant IBM a license to produce IBM branded Hammers? A better idea would be to have IBM fabbing Barton processors and UMC fabbing Appaloosa processors. Of course, simple foundry agreements would not get AMD beyond the 20% limit, even if the foundry agreements were divided between to foundries. It would just mean that each vendor would be limited to less than 20%. With each foundry producing equal numbers of units, IBM would produce 10%, UMC would produce 10%, and AMD producing 80%. Of course, AMD could license IBM to produce one IBM branded Barton processor for every Barton processor produced for AMD. This would at least increase the total number of units by 10%, assuming IBM were to fab 10% of AMD's total units. A more interesting approach might be to use UMC as a foundry for Appaloosa/Thoroughbred processors, while licensing IBM to produce one Barton processor for every Clawhammer processor sold by AMD. This would enable IBM to grab market share from both AMD and Intel as AMD's unit capacity decreases due to the shift from the smaller die size Duron/Athlon to the larger die size Hammer processors.