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: whortso who wrote (66434)	12/28/2001 1:33:25 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Whortso: It seems you can't face facts! The numbers can be intuited from the sales for each bin. There are a number of sources for this information. Granted, these numbers sound reasonable and produce the effects seen. They could be off a bin or two, but that reduces the effects and that is not seen. This was used as a counterpoint to EP's argument that Fab 30 has bad yields. Intel's yields even with higher yielding Celerons and P3s added in are still worse than worst case for AMD. Thus, the original argument that Intel's yields are worse than AMD's has yet to be denied by Elmer. I estimate that the problem is the yields for P4 are much worse than either P3, Celeron or AXP. I am sure this is not a process problem, Intel has too much experience unless they are pushing P4 very hard on 0.18u aluminum. The only realistic problems are in the binning process and Intel does not know this until 13 weeks have gone by. They noticed the problem before October and since it will not be fixed till at least March (per their comments) it required at least two cycles to fix. An ongoing problem with bin splits would also explain this. They think it is fixed by the time 13 weeks rolls around and they are dissapointed that whatever they did, did not get the effects they needed. They are sure that 0.13u bulk copper will fix this problem, but that they must wait until 0.13u makes the bulk of shipments which will not be till Q4 next year. This is akin to the K6/2 problem of AMD and the 1GHz P3 problem. The market will not wait that long and its customers would be gone, if this was generally known. So they spread fog and hope that they will fix it before customers will no longer wait. When they switch, they will be very ticked at Intel and they will not listen to them for the longest time, if ever. OTOH, they could fix it before that happens and they get away with the deception. It will be interesting too see, if a switch happens all at once or exponentially rises QoQ. The former would forever get rid of the Intel reputation and remove any marketing advantage no matter how much money thrown at it. If the latter, AMD is going to make a great deal of money and the use of outside FABs will pay great dividends. Pete