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: burn2learn who wrote (80686)	5/25/2002 1:32:53 AM
From: burn2learn	Respond to of 275872

I apologize if I start items and don’t follow up on the thread. I have stated in the past my time is limited, I post on off hours when I feel like it and want to contribute. I post insight when I can and as appropriate. I dont expose people as some have tried to imply. My desire is to educate where possible and give insight into the role of PE. Don't reply to me as I won't have time to respond in most cases. I try to give outsiders a feel for reality as I feel /see it.

To: burn2learn who wrote (80686)	5/25/2002 1:34:42 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Here is my honest take ...... this listen closely and most important realize the corporate patterns follow individual human instinct. . P858 was not the excellence of execution. Intel saw this and said not again (classic knee jerk reaction). P860 had the resources and might to correct the P858 demons. Guess what P860 is a success and is doing great in my opinion...my opinion is biased and also should be taken as an expert on this subject. This cost a huge amount of money as many engineers left their families and went to Mecca to learn P860. I think P12X is on the same path as P86X. B2L, I think it is wrong for you to post specific information regarding these matters, even expressed as an opinion. You have inside information and your opinion is affected by information not publicly available. I have avoided commenting on Intel's yields and you should do the same. EP

To: burn2learn who wrote (80686)	5/25/2002 2:40:52 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

burn2learn - Thanks, but I'm not familiar with P858, P860 and "P12/8X derivatives." Wasn't P858 Coppermine? The other designations I've never heard before. And you said, "P858 was not the excellence of execution. " Did you mean "P858 did not have good execution." Petz

To: burn2learn who wrote (80686)	5/25/2002 2:50:02 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Thank you. That makes sense. So is it possible that implementing .13u on K7 is could be more difficult than on K8? Please continue to post. Jim

To: burn2learn who wrote (80686)	5/25/2002 4:54:42 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: If .013 is hard for AMD I think it’s representative of two items. Intel, as the follower, always has an easier time of it. AMD was later to .18 because AMD developed a far more capable - copper - process at .18. AMD had the benefit of copper, which gave AMD's .18 process 3/4 the performance of Intel's .13 process, which let AMD take it's market share from 12% to 22%. Intel needed only to find out from the tool suppliers what AMD had done in order to do 3/4 of its .18 to .13 transition. This time around, AMD is leading the industry to high volume, high performance, SOI technology. It's taking them a little longer, but it is giving them a process at .13 that Intel may not be able to match at .09. This time, Intel doesn't look set to catch up to AMD until .065. Of course Intel's having an easy time moving to .13 - most of what they're doing is no more than copying AMD.