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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (169346)	8/13/2002 3:22:38 AM
From: burn2learn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Wanna_bmw, Here are a few of he forces I see out there, maybe someone like TCMAY who has been around can chime in and say these are nothing new. 1. There are few industry suppliers of process equipment. My feeling is more and more they are providing process solutions to customers. As this trend continues you get a broadening of technology to all customers...oh yes many GREAT equipment supply companies are not US based and thus have different views on the legalities of sharing tech. 2. The growing revenues base in Asia. Companies want a presence there to better serve the markets, presence means training the population in tech. There are many advantages to overseas ops....cost, talent pool ( yes talent exist outside the US and there is a density of it in ASIA), customer awareness, ect. 3, Semicons can't afford new fabs and are Increasing the use of foundries for leading edge products. While you may think that AMD, Phillips, MOTO, whatever can't partner with a foundry and come up with a leading edge process that is state of the art and be right, it is silly to ignore the bottom line. Foundries are being trained to deliver the best and on the best products. The partnerships even if they fail, will succeed in the training aspect. 4. Companies like Intel look at R&D from a business model view point (IMO), and sometimes suggest that others can't compete do to cost and margins. I don't think this holds true for a nation wanting to push forward into the future... they will support (gov) the tech growth with money. 5. As you build synergy in the foundries (they will now grow revenues at a greater rate) they will demand the attention of equipment makers. I think Intel has enjoyed being first to get certain litho tools ect in the past due to size and the possible accounts a salesman could land if they got Intel on board...what if Intel is not the biggest fish..or second, third? 6. Have you ever heard the term "not invented here"? enough said...I would explain in PM if needed. 7. Standards...hmmm. Why did SEMATEC ever exist? I would hate to see PACTECH. Standards was a bad term to use. Out of SEMITECH came FOOP boxes and other 300mm standards. What I meant to drive to the point is that process leadership will be lost. Companies don't use SEMATECH to show process leadership. They might share a little knowledge at SEMATECH or use there facilities for small efforts but I bet most of the nitty gritty R&D at Intel has no clue what SEMATECH does or cares. This is what can be lost to ASIA, the fact you have lost talent to foundries since companies need to use them to develop new processes. It's the wafer data that's the learning's, who will control the wafer data in the partnerships? the shift is that companies are being pushed to have to use foundries and these same companies want to survive. That being said they are enableing the future for foundries. I come from the planet with the purple sky...thank you. I could be wrong and I'm just being silly, I just don't see it that way today. Hey I'm paranoid, that's how I'm supposed to act!!!!

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (169346)	8/13/2002 10:56:16 AM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

BMW, Re: "I don't get it. What is fundamentally better with the foundry model?" The benefit to the foundry model is for smaller companies that cannot afford the "huge" capital costs (~3B$) to startup and outfit a new 300mm Fab. These companies also gain some "flexibilty" in upside/downside capacity adjustments that used to cost them dearly. An idle Fab can bring a small company to "its knees". But as with most things, there are some negatives as well: 1) AMD will be at the foundry's schedule for process development. Right now they are about one year behind INTC. 2) From what I have seen and experienced, foundries are very good at delivering wafers for products that don't stress the performance of their process. They are NOT good at delivering OR tuning their process to achieve high performance parts. This is where I think AMD will suffer severely. As you and many others know, the design and process need to be "tuned" together to obtain highest possible performance and highest bin yields. In the foundry model, performance will have to be "left on the table" because of the foundries inability to tune their process for all customers needs. 3) AMD will be just one voice of many when making requests for special processing or need for "hot lots" or anything else. I have worked with the top 3 foundries (TSMC/UMC/CHRT) and have experienced all three of these problems. I have also worked with INTC on process development and I can confidently say that INTC has much higher expectations for yield (defect density) than any of these foundries. Make It So, Yousef