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: wanna_bmw who wrote (150804)	12/3/2001 3:43:21 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Beamer - Re: "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." There were very few assumptions in my calculations - and where I assumed anything I stated what assumption I was using. If you can find a major error - or cite a fault in my assumption(s) - please do so. Otherwise, I believe those yield calculations are quite accurate - and leave little room for equivocation. AMD's overall shippable die/wafer out is on the order of 27% - an extremely low number. Paul

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (150804)	12/3/2001 3:49:36 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| 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? Paul's analysis is reasonable and not based assumptions. It's essentially what I've been saying all along. The only assumption implied is that AMD is fully loading their fabs. [Edit: as Ten pointed out, why would they be looking for foundry capacity if they weren't fully loaded? Hoping for better yields maybe?] EP

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (150804)	12/4/2001 1:31:56 AM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 186894

>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. I have to agree with you, Wanna, this was pretty clever... it's just too veiled (as you've noted). -Z

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (150804)	12/4/2001 11:46:53 AM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

BMW - Re:"Paul, your post sounds just like Dan's - filled with assumptions and passed off like a fact." All of the statements in Paul's calculations are absolutely solid facts with the exception that the assumption of 10,000 wafer starts per week. The wafer start numbers come from statements by Dan3. The die sizes and units sold come from AMD. The formula for complete die per wafer is a textbook calculation If you don't believe Dan's wafer start #'s, try another assumption. For a stunning result, assume that the wafer starts are 1/2 of Dan's stated number and amount to 5000 per week from 2 fabs. This is a disastrously low utilization number for 2 mega fabs. The AMD good die yield would only be 54%, a total yield disaster !! Standard yields on a new process are 70% or better initially and go up from there to 80% or even 90% on a mature process. It is no surprise that AMD is losing money with these yields while Intel is making money.