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: Joe NYC who wrote (148876)	1/24/2005 1:29:14 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe Too bad that Intel has to have 3 "spare" fabs for each top performing one, and the useful life of the initial investment is good for 1 year or 2, BTW. That's a surprise to me. I didn't realize they closed them down after 1 or 2 years... One would wonder why Intel would build 3 "spare" fabs in addition to the single fab that can supply the entire market for CPUs. Maybe the yields are less than world class. Maybe???

To: Joe NYC who wrote (148876)	1/24/2005 5:51:47 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Joe: Perhaps the yields are world class. Their problem is that the bin split's speeds are second class (or GASP, third class). To get enough into good speed bins, they must process a bunch more. Alternatively they missed far to the upside demand and must let these idle plants just rust away. Given that they upgraded some recently, the former is far more likely (making their statements in the CC disingenuous at best). Pete

To: Joe NYC who wrote (148876)	1/24/2005 6:50:39 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

One would wonder why Intel would build 3 "spare" fabs in addition to the single fab that can supply the entire market for CPUs. Maybe the yields are less than world class. They want to insure that even a yield bust such as they experienced going to .18um will never in the future prevent them from supplying at least 85+% of the market. That last fiasco let AMD capture 22+% share and make several hundred million profits for several quarters. Had that not occurred, AMD would likely have gone under by now since Intel would not have given up that amount of market share at any cost. This also allows them to introduce the next process generation much sooner than necessary since they don't have to be concerned about low initial yields. Thus, it is insurance against the two scenarios (limited production and late or equal next generation). Of course, this comes at a very steep price. But, it will keep AMD in check and keep any yield/production issues under wraps. Got to keep that myth alive at any cost. THE WATSONYOUTH