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: TGPTNDR who wrote (133645)	9/23/2004 8:39:53 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I don't care WHY AMD must (or chose to) sell X Semprons. You decide what X is. Given that: Why does an 84mm^2 part cost less than a 144mm^2 part? You already answered that yourself. I don't think a 90nm Sempron 3100+ is a loss-leader. 90nm cache appears to have no problems whatsoever. Where are you getting that idea from? Doug

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (133645)	9/23/2004 9:04:19 PM
From: DRBES	Respond to of 275872

BTW, I read those posts the same way that Doug did, it seemed to me as though Doug was being deliberately baited.

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (133645)	9/24/2004 12:29:51 AM
From: David Pletcher	Respond to of 275872

I question your assertion that Sempron 3100+ production, at this point, would be more expensive on 130Nm I have a couple thoughts in response to this: 1) Stipulating that production on 90nm may be more expensive, because of higher cost reagents and use of equipment that's at the beginning of its depreciation curve, it may still maximize profit to produce some Sempron output at 90nm. It's entirely possible, if not likely, that there's a substitution tradeoff to be made between 90nm and 130nm wafer throughput. It's quite possible that AMD may be able to churn out more product and turn a higher profit by favoring the denser, if more expensive, production pathway. Production cost and throughput are two separate optimization criteria. 2) Disregarding other factors, favoring production on the 90nm node provides AMD with greater opportunities to collect data for process improvement. -- David Pletcher

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (133645)	9/24/2004 2:48:09 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

TGPTNDR Re..Why do you think AMD is using it's next generation process to produce loss-leaders? It could very well be a matter of lowering your risk. AMD can only produce a certain percentage of 90 nm parts now. Their 130 nm process is good enough to compete against Intc's high end right now, so why take the chance. High end doesn't allow for as many problems as the low end. So, if AMD's 130 nm process is good enough to keep the high end, and it is, why take the risk, of unforseen problems developing, and ruining your high end. Work out all the kinks at low end, then move the 90 nm up to high end. That could easily have been a management decision, before any volume wafers were produced. Then, if there weren't any problems, showing up at low end, then switch to the high.