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 (82745)	6/18/2002 12:23:36 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I'd like to find out more about Intel's Israel fabs, and others that they might think about replacing. It might be the missing piece of the puzzle, IMO. Intel's Fab8 runs legacy processes and will do so for years. Fab18 is fairly modern and there's no need to decommission. It's quite comparable to AMD's Fab30 except it puts out far more processors even though they're larger. Strange considering AMD has the "Best yields in the world". EP

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (82745)	6/18/2002 8:35:54 AM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 275872

wannab: We seem to hear many times about all these Intel fabs, and how Intel is wasting money if there isn't a huge uptick in demand. Of course, I recognize this, too - who wouldn't? But we've been counting the fabs that Intel is constructing, or converting. Do you also have information on fabs which are being obsoleted, or decommissioned? I thought I saw that fabs 7 and 9 were being decommissioned, but there might be more. It could be cheaper to build a new location if either: a) a previous location has some environmental hazards (i.e. fabs 8 and 18 in Israel!!), or b) if renovation costs exceed construction costs of a more cost efficient fab (perhaps as in the case of fabs 7 and 9). I'd like to find out more about Intel's Israel fabs, and others that they might think about replacing. It might be the missing piece of the puzzle, IMO." Once again, early results are in and don't exactly support the notion that INTC has been spending wisely... INTC's PPE has risen from $11.7 billion at the close of FY99 (i.e post Athy intro.)to $18.1 billion at the close of FY01 compared to flat PPE for AMD over the same interval...Meanwhile INTC's revenues have declined from $29.4 billion to $26.5 billion while AMD's revenues have risen from $2.9 billion to $3.9 billion in this same interval... No matter which way I cut those numbers, they add up to a huge negative for INTC... Yet another indicator of two companies headed in opposite directions...