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 (151490)	12/6/2001 9:54:54 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Most people don't do the simple math - and realize that AMD's die yields STINK at 27% - whereas Intel's yields are 2X to 3X of that ! You may be right about this Paul but I'm trying to give AMD the benefit of the doubt. It's not easy but if we assume AMD is only devoting half their fab capacity to processors (why in the world would they do that?) then your 2x or 3x numbers don't work. However even under these highly improbable conditions the yields are still a disaster. There is no doubt their fabs are in deep trouble, at least to people who have knowledge of semiconductor manufacturing, but Intel's 2x or 3x yield may possibly be too optimistic, but then again they could be spot on. EP

To: Paul Engel who wrote (151490)	12/6/2001 10:21:10 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Most people don't do the simple math [on yields] Over the past 3 years, Intel has spent about $20 Billion on chipmaking facilities, while AMD has spent about $2.5 Billion. Let's say a third of Intel's costs are for flash, etc. while all of AMD's costs are for CPUs. So Intel spent (at least) $14 Billion on CPU plant, while AMD spent $2.5 Billion. Intel spent 5+ times as much, yet their plants only produce 3 times as many chips. The average (median) size of Intel CPUs has been smaller than AMD CPUs, since many are .18 PIII/Celeron at 90mm2 or .13 mobile PIII/Celeron and Celeron at 79mm2. As Intel ramps 217mm2 P4s (and even Northwood won't be tiny) that will change. Meanwhile, AMD's chips are Athlons at 129mm2 and Durons at 100mm2. AMD's yields are fine, and there is no way Intel should be finding itself low on anything after spending all that money on their FABs. And AMD longs aren't stuck withe vague "our yields are the bestest in the universe!" banalities from the company, they way you are. AMD has publicly and on the record stated they are getting 90% yields (200 die off an 8 inch wafer). If either company is having yield problems, it's Intel.