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: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/3/2001 2:47:08 PM
From: denni	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

paul, have you got your Segway? i'm surprised you're are online. probably not with @home? denni

To: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/3/2001 2:48:02 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Hence, the available information from AMD - coupled with just a few common sense assumptions - results in the conclusion that AMD is yielding only 27% of the AthWiper/DudWrong die on each processed CPU wafer being functional and meeting their specifications for shipments to customers. This is an APPALLINGLY LOW number and accounts for AMD losing money despite AMD having a big die size advantage over Intel - whereas Intel's IABG division was quite profitable this past quarter - Q3, 2001. Exactly what I keep saying. The numbers are inescapeable and speak for themselves. It's simple... AMD's yields stink. BTW: You need to allow another ~5% for assemble/Test fallout, but what's a couple a die amongst friends? EP

To: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/3/2001 2:51:07 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

pAUL, Yousef re:"AMD's Die Yields are only 27%" You forgot the copper contamination at Dresden and that AMD can't make anything run faster than 300Mhz. Make it so, Mysef

To: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/3/2001 3:04:32 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

AMD's Die Yields are only 27% Paul, much as we hate the expression "you outdid yourself", on that one, you did! Re: Computing an "average die size" is done simply by taking 50% of 104 + 40% of 120 and 10% of 129 (0.5104 + 0.4120 + 0.1*129) = 112.9 sq. mm. "in the aggregate" AMD executives love to use this expression - "in the aggregate" !! Great attention to detail throughout the post. A lazier guy like me would have done a SWAG on overall average die size instead of calculating it across all three chip types. Re: This is an APPALLINGLY LOW number and accounts for AMD losing money despite AMD having a big die size advantage over Intel - whereas Intel's IABG division was quite profitable this past quarter - Q3, 2001. AMD generally blamed ASPs for the quarterly loss, if I recall. Trying to recall Hector's words re yields during the Q3 end CC and their recent webcast. Nothing comes to mind right away, but I think they've been claiming good yields all along. ?!?! Tony

To: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/3/2001 3:15:32 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, your post sounds just like Dan's - filled with assumptions and passed off like a fact. I was almost on the floor laughing before I realized that you might be serious. Are you, or is this just one big satire on Dan3? In the case of the former, I will have to take your analysis with a grain of salt; otherwise, this might be one of the funniest things I've ever read. wbmw

To: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/3/2001 3:43:05 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, I've got a little nitpick here. You called AMD's fabs "MegaFlop 30" and "MegaFlop 35." I don't know where you got the numbers from, because AMD calls them Fab 25 and Fab 30. In any case, either AMD is running their fabs at capacity, which would suggest terrible yields, or AMD isn't (process transitions and whatever), which makes one wonder why they were looking for foundry capacity. Tenchusatsu

To: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/3/2001 4:18:47 PM
From: Joseph Pareti	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

cool post Paul. So that's a deja-vu in AMD's land, no? wasn't the poor yields that killed them in the years gone by? I kind of remember "sharp tooth" ?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (150798)	12/4/2001 1:30:01 AM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 186894

>AMD's Die Yields are only 27% Isn't this just another example of what Mary was saying that Dan did? Confusing lurkers who may be unaware that Paul is being facetious? I agree with Mary on this point. Dan, please back up your numbers. -Z