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 (71844)	2/18/2002 12:21:29 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>I will grant you that if you grant me the fact that 300 mm chips have other expensive costs associated with it. Not to mention the fact that Intel will have to shutter a lot of those 200 mm fabs. Intel needs to go to 300 mm because of the big die problem.< Not true. They may need to do so, but it is not a given. Currently Intel can command a sufficient price premium to offset the large die, and this probably will not change until the transition to 90nm. A better way of stating it is that Intel can afford to go to 300mm because of their unit volume. The problem is that, if the die size of the 90nm P4 is 50% larger than that of the 90nm Clawhammer, and yield per unit of wafer area is similar for both, Intel with four 300mm wafer fabs will be able to produce 6.4 times as many P4s as AMD can Clawhammer processors. Even if AMD outsources another 25% to UMC, Intel would have over five times the unit capacity of AMD. Thus Intel has to sell five times as many processors as AMD to achieve similar profitability. This will be very difficult to do if AMD's capacity (including UMC) is 60 million units in 2004 and total unit demand is 188 million, as AMD predicts. Indeed, if AMD has capacity for 60 million processors and Intel can produce more than five times this, they would have over 300 million units of capacity for a total market of 188 million processors. AMD would not have to sell a single processor for Intel to develop excess inventory problems. AMD doesn't, and can change over at its leisure, and on the cheap; as was demonstrated by the JV partnership.

To: hmaly who wrote (71844)	2/18/2002 3:56:25 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

hmaly, I'm about as dubious about a large amount of "dark transistors" in the P4 as dark matter in the universe. I don't think it should take more than 5% of the die size to implement SMT, even less for the large-cache NW's. Petz