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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: semiconeng who wrote (153944)	1/5/2002 8:55:25 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

semiconeng, thanks for the informative post about Intel fabs. Tony

To: semiconeng who wrote (153944)	1/5/2002 9:12:08 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: In addition, generally more than 50% of the Process Tools can be reused in the new process By rebuilt, I meant re-equipped, not that the walls are replaced. But if what you say about tool reuse is generally true (and I'm not questioning it), then "every two years" should be "every 4 years." Either way, it seems to be costing Intel $1.5 Billion to $2 Billion each quarter to maintain its FABs. Exactly what percentage of how many FABs that rebuilds is going to be tough to determine. I don't think they're going to close any 0.18u, or 0.25u Fabs They certainly won't have to, but they may want to if the move to 300mm wafers and .09 does what everyone expects it to in terms of increasing FAB output. A 300mm wafer FAB should be able to produce about 10 times what a 200mm .18 FAB can produce (2.5 times the area per wafer x 4 times the density of the parts produced). CPUs will probably be 2 to 4 times as complex, by then, so they should be able to make 2 to 3 times as many per FAB - so they may want to save costs by running fewer FABs.