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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (9989)	5/23/2004 5:18:13 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25522

Sam, Any credible discussion of semi capacity must refer to technology nodes and capacity utilization. Have you come across these terms in Hickey's and Abelson's writings? Chinese capacity is mostly at 250 and 180 nanometers. State of the art capacity is at 130 and 90 nanometers. R & D is occurring at 65 and 45 nanometers. In 2000, 250 and 180 nanometers were state of the art. The Japanese "outlays" are for 300mm at 130, 90, and 65 nanometers. Recent reports have indicated very high fab utilization across all nodes, including the older ones. Continued growth in demand has sparked additional capacity at 200mm along with the newer 300mm buildout. AMAT said 30% of sales were for under 100 nanometers. They said 100% were under 180 nanometers, but that was inconsistent with their sales to China for 180 nanometer and above tools. 248 nanometer lithography tools work down to 100 nanometer designs. 193 nanometer tools work for 90 and 65 nanometers. 193 immersion is expected for 65 anf 45 nanometer designs and EUV is expected for 45, 32, 22, 16, 10, and 7. Other tool capabilities are not as well known by the industry and people at large, but many tools in use in 2000 are not able to perform at smaller line widths. Also, most tools in 2000 were 200mm. The lifetime of a tool is longer than useful life. When new production lines go online in new fabs, the effect on older production lines depends on particulur chip markets. If the cost and price model of the new fab obsoletes the chips produced by the old, the old line switches to another chip which it can produce profitably, or it shuts down. The glut of semi capacity due to the bubble is gone. That is evident from fab utilization rates, shortages, and capacity orders. Is it possible for the Chinese to act imprudently enough to cause another glut? Only at 250 and 180 nanometer design rules, now. Cary