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: hmaly who wrote (66931)	1/2/2002 10:33:16 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 275872

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. I'll tell you what, I won't tell you about pouring concrete. EP

To: hmaly who wrote (66931)	1/2/2002 11:10:55 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

hmaly: "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." What others say: AMD's fab of the year? Dataquest says AMD market share growing. XP's a fabulous success according to Mr. Sanders... What Elmo says: INTCy market share growing, INTCy yields much larger than AMD's... Someone can't see the forest for the trees it seems...

To: hmaly who wrote (66931)	1/3/2002 11:04:24 AM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

<<<<< 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. -So the article dated July 31 said 60%. July 31 is the end of Q2, not Q3, if the article was saying 60% at the end of Q2, and Elmer was saying 80% by the end of Q3, and averaging 70% was his gesstimate for Q3. 60% at the end of Q2, 80% at the end of Q3, seems to average to 70% across Q3 which I though was Elmers statement. How does that make those percentage figures bogus? 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. -So, it looked to me that the award was "being the first facility in the world specifically designed to produce microprocessors with copper interconnects", it doesn't say anything about yield on that process at all. -I'm not saying Elmer's correct, but it seems like your statements seem to be equaling his, in the "stretch" department. Semi