Semicongeng Re...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?<<<<<<<<<<
What is bogus, is the assumption that this plant, or any other plant in the world is producing at 100% of its production capacity, day in and day out, every day of the quarter, without any allowance for down time at even one machine. That is what is ridiculous, Most plants when running full out run at 80% to 90% of capacity, in the good times. To say Dresden would was at 100% of its production capacity, during a recession, when the line speed could easily have been cut back to put production in line with sales, and use that figure to determine the amount of wafers produced, without any other verification, is ridiculous. Elmer first needs to prove the amount of wafers which were run, and the end production, against the max. no. which could have been produced, to show yields. Would of, could of, should of, doesn't cut it.
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.<<<<<<<<<
True, but do you really think that semiconductor international would have singled out this fab for recognition, if its yields were bad, no matter what the process was. In other words, the proof is in the pudding. Amd is hardly the only manufacturer to use the copper process. In fact,AFAIK, IBM built a 100% copper fab also, and spearheaded the copper process. Shouldn't that plant have been recognized, if the development of the copper process is all Semiconductor International was interested in? And why would Semi. Int. recognize the copper process at all if the end result was a disaster, as Elmer claims. Why wasn't Intel's notched gates recognized last year, if all Semi, Int. was looking for was a new process. To be the best fab in the world, you have to be good at everything; not just one aspect. And certainly, yields are the most important aspect.
-I'm not saying Elmer's correct, but it seems like your statements seem to be equaling his, in the "stretch" department.<<<<<<<<<
Anytime anyone uses production figures based on idealistic conditions, which never happen in real life, it is a stretch. Jerry said in the 3q-01 cc Amd was going to switch production from fab 25 to fab 30. Isn't it likely that AMD is in the process of doing so right now? Isn't it likely that at least 30% of that mythical 100% production, at Dresden, will be Durons. Where are the durons in Elmer's figures? If AMD didn't produce any durons at Dresden, wouldn't it be likely that AMD is setting up the capacity, until AMD can start the change over? Elmer's question of where the other 1.5 million chips are, could easily be answered, when he answers that question. Why is it when Elmer can't think of a good reason for something, that automatically means something is desperately wrong at AMD. There are other reasons. |
