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 (66906)	1/2/2002 8:04:19 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Elmer: And you forget that it takes 13 weeks plus a few to take a wafer from start to shipped at the retailer so that he can sell it. So at the minimum, you should use Q2 period for wafer starts rather than Q3 (this obvious error means you do not look at the real world much). Changing to go back 13 weeks means that 60% at end of Q2 means that 50% of 5000WPW should be the base or 2500WPW. Rerunning the calculations shows that 2500 WPW * 115 GDPW * 13 weeks = 3737500 good die was available to be sold in Q3. And that matches what sold. Obviously AMD did not suffer a yield crash unlike Intel which is still short per your definition used in your post. 50K WPW * 50 GDPW(P4) * 13 weeks should make at least 32.5 million P4 CPUs. Since Intel did not sell that many and Celerons and P3s are a lot smaller, Intel must have a big yield problem. I think that Intel has two possible problems, speed bin yield curve does not allow for enough to be sold profitably in the higher bins and/or Intel did not start enough wafers in Q2 to keep shortages from happening. Even now, they must be suffering these same problems, since they are yet to be fixed. Only the former would explain how persistent this problem is and how moving to 0.13u would fix it. Since you obviously do not think Intel Mgmt is stupid, only having an intractable binning problem makes sense. What they do not want to let on is that they have one. Pete

To: Elmer who wrote (66906)	1/2/2002 10:21:29 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer Re...Well trust old AlBErT to miss the meaning of the data. He's not the brightest bulb on the xmas tree<<<<<<< Albert didn't miss what you seem to have missed. You say "Assuming a linear ramp, your 80% capacity for end of Q3 would average out to 70% over the quarter. " the article says "AMD Fab 30 employees have flawlessly executed an aggressive production ramp while achieving exceptional results," said Hans Deppe, vice president and general manager, Fab 30. " We're looking forward to reaching 100% production capacity at Fab 30 by the end of the year from our present level of approximately 60% while using the most advanced technologies." <<<<< At the time of the article, July 31st,2001, which happens to be 6 months ago, the utilization rate was 60% at the end of the quarter; which is a far cry from your guesstimate of 70% over the whole quarter; which means your figures are bogus. In addition you seem to have missed this part. . AMD's Fab 30 was recently awarded "Fab of the Year" by Semiconductor International magazine in recognition of being the first facility in the world specifically designed to produce microprocessors with copper interconnects. <<<<<<< If the yields are so bad, why wasn't one of Intels fabs named fab of the yr. by semiconductor international. Apparently this organization thinks AMD's yields not only are just fine and dandy, but the best in the world. And you want to denigrate that with bogus figures. Get real.