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: wanna_bmw who wrote (75977)	3/31/2002 6:40:30 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"It's obvious that something went wrong, and that it had to be delayed," Nope, it's not obvious. Remember that the first TBreds will be the mobile versions and no one talks about them until laptops ar ready to ship. This is exactly how it happened last year with the Palomino chips. AMD could have made their shipment for revenue in Q102 if this was the case. The lack of rumors and/or reports means nothing if AMD handles things like they did with the Palomino. And no, I don't have a clue why Intel can't do the same, AMD is as tight-lipped as they come. Remember the tapeout for the Hammer? There were many who were swearing it hadn't taped out because there were no reports or rumors until the day AMD announced that they had working silicon. And there were those who were still dubious up until the day they demo'd them...

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (75977)	3/31/2002 6:47:23 PM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 275872

wannab: "It's obvious that something went wrong..." You really shouldn't be so quick to jump to such negative conclusions...Might just jump up and bite you real soon!!! (Remember, since q3 and q4 AMD has repeatedly targeted q2 as the quarter they return to profitability...Can't rule out T-Bred contracts just yet!!!)

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (75977)	3/31/2002 9:41:00 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Wanna, You've got a viewpoint that could be correct. I started taking apart your quote understandings. But our differences there are minor. Where we have the difference seems to be in your summary: If yields are so good, and the transition had started more than 3 months ago, then where are AMD's .13u parts? The transition that started ~ 3 months ago was not production line stuff. It was lab stuff. Production stuff hadn't started running as of the earnings announcement -- per Jerry's comment -- "The 130nm Athlons, which internally are codenamed thoroughbred, are widely sampled at customers, will commence production this quarter." It's obvious that something went wrong, and that it had to be delayed, but the question is "How long?" It could be that something went wrong. We'll find out on April 17th. I wouldn't bet your bippy, though, & I'm not betting mine that it's not delayed. Right now we have a null, IMO. Another question is, "Will the delay impact Hammer?" Why would it? Completely different process. Hammer's still working it's way out of the lab. tgptndr

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (75977)	4/1/2002 3:57:53 AM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Wanna: Fab30 began transitioning to 130nm in Q4, but AMD has already missed their Q1 deadline for production shipments. Considering that these are exclusively mobile parts, I disagree with you. You may well be right, but we just don't know yet. Mobile parts very rarely leak (not sure why) and the time from shipment of processors to availability of the notebook computers is significantly longer than is the case with desktops. As I recall, it was quite a while from AMD saying it had started shipping Athlon4s to availability of notebooks equipped with the chips occurred. -fyo