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 (66552)	12/29/2001 12:28:09 AM
From: whortso	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, I have heard that Intel doesn't do any testing of the functions of a chip. They do something called testing the structures or structure testing, something like that. How can you test a device without testing how it functions? Whort

To: Elmer who wrote (66552)	12/29/2001 9:48:44 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer Re...100 GDPW would be terrible yield for Intel. I'm not agreeing that those fabs are really 10,000 WSPW but even at half that size, 5000 WSPW (small for Intel) that would be 200 GDPW. CuMine is smaller than Athlon so it should yield better. If you would only do a little number crunching for yourself you wouldn't make such foolish statements.<<< I was hardly arguing it wasn't possible. Yes, 1 million chips per wk. was possible. And with the 3 other fabs you claimed were producing coppermines at that time,3 million chips per wk was possible. But 3 million chips /wk translates to 39 million cpu's/ quarter, which was twice the amount sold during the quarter, considering ~32.5 million cpu were sold at that time, and half were coppermine; and there was a shortage of P3 during all of 2000. So what was possible didn't happen.