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: Tony Viola who wrote (75354)	3/22/2002 4:12:25 PM
From: Yousef	Respond to of 275872

Tony, Re: "No. You didn't mention yields in your post listing all the money Intel spends, and why that makes them NOT the low cost producer. If AMD spends less, in proportion to its size, but its yields are much less, then they wouldn't be the low cost producer." I', afraid that you are "confusing" poor Albert with the FACTS. He doesn't know much about the semi industry. He spends most of his time "re-posting" out-of-date ANALyst announcements. <ggg> Make It So, Yousef

To: Tony Viola who wrote (75354)	3/22/2002 4:23:17 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tony re: i that was a misspelling and no insult was intended re: but its yields are much less, then they wouldn't be the low cost producer. you're completely wrong about that. 1) The bottom line is (cash inflow - cash outflow) / number of shares 2) assuming that number of shares and demand do not vary much, one can look at ( cash inflow - cash outflow ) per individual chip Yields define how many chips are made per wafer. But your total cost is a single number and your number of chips is also a single number. Cost then can be normalized with respect to number of chips or profit per share One should never confuse micro with macro optimization. Many do and that usually leads to very undesirable results BTW where did you get information about intel's or amd's yields