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: Elmer who wrote (66429)	12/27/2001 8:41:45 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer: Still we are left with the undeniably low output of F30 Heheh… Of course, I'll continue to question your "undeniably low output" ;-). I just simply don't think it's lower than would be expected (although I am somewhat more skeptical now, since some of AMD's recent claims seem to contradict other recent statements, but I haven't had time to look up the references yet, so it could well just be a misunderstanding on my part) - or, at least, I haven't seen any convincing numbers pointing towards a low yield. And, of course, there are AMD's repeated comments that "yields are fine, demand is great" or whatever ;-). (and not just "fine", better than Austin - and that was a year ago - now, they're even better). -fyo

To: Elmer who wrote (66429)	12/27/2001 10:40:17 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: keep cropping up about the high speed XPs using .13u transistors with channel lengths down to 70nm. Implying that Intel's aren't. When P4 was at 1.5GHZ and Athlon was at 1.2GHZ, both were using 90nm channel lengths, and Intel was claiming 130nm channel lengths in its .18 process specifications, while AMD was claiming as short as 70nm for its .18 process. Now P4 is at 2GHZ and AMD is at 1.5GHZ - both 33% faster. AMD almost certainly is at 70nm for those parts, but Intel almost certainly is also at 70nm for the 2GHZ P4. You've decided that AMD sped up its chips by shortening channel lengths, while Intel was able to substitute what, magic? Intel was limited to 1.5GHZ with the P4 when the measured channel lengths were 90nm and Intel was claiming 130nm in its SPECs. It has become faster, and Intel continues to list 130nm as the "official" channel length. That was wrong before, why shouldn't it be wrong now?

To: Elmer who wrote (66429)	12/28/2001 5:55:02 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer Re...Despite all the debate here and on the Intel thread, I find it hard to believe AMD has this bad a yield problem in the normal sense of the word. Still we are left with the undeniably low output of F30, compared to what would be expected from a normal fab with normal defect density and all speed distributions being saleable.<<< Unbelieveable, you are determining AMD's yields are bad based on output, at a time the whole world is in recession. Just because AMD has a 5000 w/wk capacity, doesn't mean AMD is producing 5000 w/ wk. All corporations normally cut back production in a recession. Why not here? Back in the 3q-01 cc, Jerry said that they were going to sell their parts at a price, AMD could make a profit, not at a price to increase market share. What makes you think that AMD hasn't done that, and reduced their capacity to what AMD thought they could sell at a profit. It takes time to speed up again, and by the time AMD knew of the extent of Intel's P4 shortages, and resulting higher than expected XP sales, it was too late to speed up the output for this quarter. The same could be said of Intel of course, so trying to decide yields based upon output, when neither side is producing all out is a exercise in futility. As far as believable is concerned, you have a lot of nerve calling other people liars, considering your outright lying a yr,. ago about those 1 million coppermines/wk coming out of the fab in Chandler. I will stick with what Niles, Osha, and the other analysts are saying, because they don't have an axe to grind, and can be believed, and all of the analyists say AMD's yields are just fine. In addition, at the 3q-01 cc, Jerry said AMD was going to shut down FAB 25, and concert it to flash, as all of AMD's cpu production could be produced at Dresden alone. Does that really sound like AMD is producing at capacity at Dresden right now. Of course not, so to try to imitate that AMD's low production is anything but AMD slowing down capacity to put production in line with sales, is ridiculous. Jerry did say, AMD had the capacity to produce on .13, 50 million chips/yr.; which is ~1 million chips/wk,; which, at 5000 wspw = 200 good die/ wafer; which is 4 times what you are trying to sell us here. Intel is in the same boat, for different reasons. Intel decided,since sales were slow, and Intc, had a lot of overcapacity, to shut down the P3 lines, move capacity and demand to P4, so that Intel could get the higher ASP's of P4, while Intel had excess capacity. Normally this would be a smart move, however Intel misjudged the demand shutting down P3 would create, leaving shortages in the P4, which takes months to alleviate, because it takes months to increase production runs. What is likely to happen? Unless enterprise segments start heating up, Xmas is over, and we will return to over supply by both, meaning another price war.