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: milan0 who wrote (63377)	11/11/2001 3:08:43 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

If average die sizes stay around the 100 mm level, plus or minus, I wonder how beneficial 12" wafers are. With over 200 useable CPU's per wafer at typical yields, the total silicon cost per CPU is less than $13. Switching to 12" wafers might reduce that to $8, big deal. The silicon cost difference becomes even less for the sizes mentioned for Clawhammer. The only situation where 12" makes sense is 1) if you need to build a new fab anyway OR 2) your existing fabs will not provide sufficient capacity. What about depreciation costs? I think the additional costs of equipement to swithch over to 12" would eliminate the advantage of the same fab being able to produce more CPU's. So higher depreciation costs get divided by more CPU's, so there is no cost advantage. Plus, in the case of Intel, they probably will consider developing a new process on 12" wafers too risky. So they will have to spend first to go to 0.10 geometry and then spend again to redevelop the same process using 12" wafers. Petz

To: milan0 who wrote (63377)	11/11/2001 5:37:01 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Myke, Re: 'If true, it's a very clever tactic from AMD (IMO).' I don't know that I agree with the Merrill paragraph -- AMD could certainly, and will, go to 12" wafers, later rather than sooner -- but it's an interesting point of view. But I agree with a point of view that Albert posted me over a year ago -- that between INTC and AMD we're headed into a massive overcapacity situation. In Intel's approach: I see oversized die that can't keep up(in application performance)with the competition. I see cancellation of the P-III(Intel may have decided to put that off for a while, finally.). I hear them talking about 'filling their factories to get costs down' and think somebody's laced the water they drink from.(Can they have entered a 'take or pay' with their equipment manufacturers?) RMBS -- What were they thinking? I see a strategy of Hubris meets $ and think that it cannot be right. At AMD it looks like the strategy is to get cheap and fast. Might be right. Multi core -- BRCD and IBM are there -- HWP going there to stall IA-64 requirements -- Looks OK. Memory controller on chip -- looks OK. I think they need to broaden their chipset work anyway. But I'm not really optimistic about either companies stock price over the short term. Thanks for the post. It gave me a chance to think, in the quiet of the morning, about some things. Now off to breakfast and Thuja planting. tgptndr