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: Elmer who wrote (80518)	5/23/2002 12:06:00 AM
From: ptanner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, re: Can't the .18u capacity be absorbed by chipsets with Intel owning ~65% of the market? If so then why produce .18u Celerons? OK. I think we would need a relative size ("# fabs") for each of the major production areas. There has been a lot of 0.18 capacity used for P4s and I doubt it would be needed for chipsets unless Intel just transitioned chipsets to 0.18 from an older process. From a couple of years ago I recall that Intel's performance:value processor ratio was about 60:40 so even when the P4 has shifted completely to 0.13 there will still be more than enough 0.18 capacity for P4-Celerons. The P4-Celerons should be an easy shift for the existing 0.18 fabs which have been making 0.18 P4s. While the shift increases the variable cost for the value processors (and significantly increases the power requirements) using all 0.13 for mobiles and performance processors makes the most sense as they can extract full value from the lower power and higher clock potential. Besides, I am sure these fabs have excellent yields and bin splits to meet the P4-Celeron speeds. re: "A recent article showed Intel was the world's largest producer of comm/networking silicon. Does Intel need the capacity to meet this demand?" Was this the article that noted Intel's business was only down 22% last year? Hm. No, in that article Intel was #2. I am sure Intel has good plans for all of its production potential. Something I am distinctly less comfortable about with AMD. -PT