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: fyodor_ who wrote (68328)	1/19/2002 4:10:30 PM
From: semiconeng	Respond to of 275872

Also, I believe Petz was looking at it from the availability end… i.e. "at least half a fab" was producing NWs 12 weeks ago, or however long Intel's pipeline is, from wafer in to CPU delivery. Given your "semiconeng"-ness, it is logical for you to look from things from the "wafer in" side, whereas more consumer-oriented folks tend to approach it from the "shipping" (or "shipped", rather ;-)) side. --Ahhhh yes, quite true, the perspectives could be different. However, even based on the perspective and parameters that you set up, I see no reason to change my statement. Like everyone else in the industry, Intel ramps slowly. They don't just fire up multiple fabs all at once and start spitting out NWs, hoping there were no errors / bugs / errata. If there was half a fab or so producing NWs 12 weeks ago, the number today is certainly significantly higher. -fyo --Of course there is no such thing as firing up multiple fabs at once, but that also does not prevent the ramping of Fabs in parallel. It is my understanding that since intel follows a "copy exactly" strategy, then the lead fab, probably Oregon, will most likely see issues before the other fabs, and then the other fabs can implement the fixes before the issues happen. This ccould speed up a ramp significantly. --In any case, we'll see in Q1.... Semi