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: AK2004 who wrote (78510)	4/26/2002 6:50:40 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

albert, Re: "of course there is a minor detail" It looks like you also left out a "minor detail" "it costs Intel about 55-60% more to manufacture a 300mm wafer versus a 200mm wafer but they get 240% more die per wafer yielding roughly a 30% reduction in die cost." So if you include the rest of the sentence - 240% more die per wafer - with "1.5-2.0 times better total yield on their processors", and I believe the statement, "negates the die size advantage of their closest competitor," makes a little more sense. All it takes is the ability and patience to read until the end of the sentence. wbmw

To: AK2004 who wrote (78510)	4/26/2002 8:30:35 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Albert, Strictly speaking adding more area to compensate for a larger die is no accurate, since larger dies encounter a higher rate of die errors, mainly particles, so it is a desperation move to somehow make enough good parts to supply the market. Without 300M Intel would be in deep doodoo. AMD on the other hand is able to make on 200MM and can change to 300MM later after equipment gets perfected, as well as cheaper. In addition better DUV exposure methods come along if you commit later. Bill