Semicongeng... Re... But that is ALREADY factored into the number of tools you need to buy to support the capacity. <<<<<<<
That isn't the definition of 100% production capacity. There is a difference between 100% production capacity (which is the maximum capacity) and the normal utilization rate, which maxes out at around 90 -94%.
http://www.ie.msstate.edu/courses/mfgprocess/class_notes1/tsld007.htm
Production Capacity
The maximum rate of production that a plant can produce in a given time period
measured in output units such as tons or pieces
Previous slide Next slide Back to first slide View graphic version
http://www.austinhomeloan.com/economic/cu.html
Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization
Source: Federal Reserve System
Frequency: Monthly
Availability: Two to three weeks following the reported month
Possible Impact on Interest Rates: Larger-than-expected monthly increase or increasing trend is considered inflationary, causing bond prices to drop and yields and interest rates to rise.
Current Data Reported April 14, 2000: Industrial production was up 0.3% in March, pushed higher by a 0.4% gain in the manufacturing component, which accounts for 89% of the total. A strong increase in auto production last month contributed to a 0.8% rise in durable goods manufacturing. Nondurables were flat in March. Capacity utilization ticked lower to 81.4%, well below the 85% threshold considered inflationary. See "Overview" below for more information.
Overview: Capacity utilization measures the extent to which the nation's capital is being used in the production of goods. The utilization rate rises and falls with business cycles. As production increases, capacity utilization rises.
Economists closely watch capacity utilization for signs of inflation pressures. There is a common belief that when utilization rises above somewhere between 82% and 85%, prices pressures increase, resulting in inflation.
The industrial production index, released at the same time, measures the physical volume of output of the nation's manufacturing sector, including factories, mines, and utilities.
Goods-producing industries account for about 45% of the economy. The balance, the service sector and construction industry, account for the remaining 55%. They are not covered by this report.
The index is expressed as a percentage of production in a base year. Currently, the base year is 1987. The data is typically expressed as an increase or decrease from the prior month.
The slower the production pace, the better the bond market likes it. Conversely, a strong production and capacity utilization report leads to a market sell-off.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Thus there is a big difference between having the capacity and capacity utilization. Most companies try to have 120% production capacity over utilization rates. If utilization pushes over 85 - 90%, then a company would normally add to production capacity. Therefore, if AMD had the ability to produce at 70% of 5000 wpw, their planned production, if AMD was planning to run at normal full out capacity would be 80 - 85% of that 3500 wpw = 2975 wpw output. However, AMD was in a slow period and could very well have planned for a 75% utilization rate, or even lower. So unless you know the wafer run rate, you must know the utilization rate, which is a more accurate gauge than a production capacity rate, which is never obtained.
Since we have already agreed that AMD's yield numbers are not published to Semiconductor International, Their recognition has NOTHING to do with Yield, despite your now 2nd attempt to make it seem so. Who's being "bogus" now?<<<<<<<<<<<<
Horse hockey. I agreed that AMD's yield numbers are not published, just as hardly anyone else's. I did not agree that Semiconductor Int. has no way of finding our or approximating closely the yield. Why would Semi. Int. recognize a process if it is worthless, which could be the main reason Intels notch gates weren't recognized. Secondly, all of the analysts agree that AMD hasn't had any known production problems. AMD didn't publicise their K-6 production problems either, but everybody knew anyway. Why wouldn't that happen here?
That award (to remind you again), was not for "The Best Fab In The World". That's 3 times now...<<<<<<<<<<
Sorry, but I beg to differ. Here is the line both you and I are referring to.
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. <<<<<
Please note that AMD was awarded the "Fab of the Year" award. It was not the "Copper fab of the yr award" I read that statement as meaning Dresden was the fab of the year because their copper process in use in Dresden is the best of any process used in any fab in the world, not just copper. If their yields were bad, why would Semi. Int. recognize this fab as "Fab of the Yr." You are reading what you want to read.
. I would guess that the reason that Elmer thinks that "something is desperately wrong at AMD", is probably for the same reasons that most (all) AMD fans (including you), automatically think the same thing about intel. So if you want an answer to your question...... ask yourself<<<<
You are confusing me with others on this thread. Please note this post I made several days ago to Elmer
To:Elmer who wrote (66496)
From: hmaly Friday, Dec 28, 2001 4:52 PM
View Replies (3) | Respond to of 67088
Elmer Re...It's based on AMD's own statement that they were capacity constrained. If that statement was untrue then no analysis can be made. I hope you can calm down and realize that estimate was made in good faith based on AMD's own statements.<<<<<
Sure, Amd was capacity constrained, just as Intel was. But there is a difference between capacity constrained and production constrained. The difference being that AMD and Intel had planned for a certain capacity . When demand exceeded capacity, both were unable to increase production immediately, (because it takes three months to get extra wafers produced.) resulting in a short term shortage, which should be taken care of shortly. Production constrained means when the manufacturer is producing at full output, and I don't believe either is.
Intel however, initiated it by forcing the P3 to P4 changeover, which resulted in a big surge in P4 orders, plus there was a surge in electronics after Sept 11, computers were a part of the upsurge, causing a bigger demand than Intel was ready for. Which created a bigger demand for the XP than AMD was ready for. Both should be up to speed shortly.
It's this simple, If AMD was intentionally restricting their Athlon production then my analysis doesn't apply.
Both, your and Dan3 estimates were based upon full production capacity; something which would be unlikely at this time. While I don't follow Intel, I do know Jerry announced at the 3q-01 CC, that AMD didn't need the production capacity of fab 25, and AMD was going to shift production of the Durons to Dresden. That hardly sounds like AMD is production constrained. I also know Intel shut down some fabs and laid off 9000 through layoffs or attrition. AMD and Intel were capacity constrained because the production schedules for both were light, and not properly balanced. Given time, both will shift production to meet a particular demand.
You really don't have a clue do you? That 1 million/week number first came from a process engineer from F12, not me. I just confirmed it.
I fully understood what you were saying then. But subsequent sales figures and shortages have proven that to be a lie, as there were supposed to be 4 fabs producing coppermines. This one fab alone could, according to you, produced 13 million p3 / q. the total sales of P3 for the quarter. Yet, there was a big shortage. Why??? That is why no one believed it then, and now. <<<<<<<<
Please note that I said I believed both AMD and Intel arn't producing at full utilization rates. Companies very seldom are during normal times, much less during a recession. Why would either be running full out during this downturn? |
