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: Elmer Phud who wrote (157042)	4/20/2005 12:13:04 PM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, re: Report on Intel capacity constraints. Rink: Intel increased ramping speed of 65nm. Also additional capacity is said to be necessary after "a prolonged period of capacity tightness" (p4). Also: "We continue to see signs that Intel's tier 2 and tier 3 customers are experiencing tight supply conditions of Alviso chipsets and notebook processors". Elmer, I'm absolutely sure you will conclude from this that yields must have been absolutely wonderful ;-). Elmer responded: Nice try but Alviso isn't on the same process as the Processors and thus isn't in the same Fabs. Keep trying though. You rather conveniently forgot that notebook processors are made in the same fabs as all other 90nm processors. Also the first capacity-is-tight remark was made in general refering to the need that Intel sees to build NEW 300mm 90/65nm fabs that will be used for additional cpu production capacity. Even while the 'older' 300mm 90nm fabs will ofcourse gradually be used for chipset production as well that is a much longer term phenomenon that can't be interpreted as meaning Intel needs the new fab capacity to free room for chipsets - that would be hilarious. Hence the fact that you manage to pick the chipset quote as most relevant remark from my quotes is imo rather astonishing. About flash: You're right that there is no hard data. You're wrong in implying that means that Intel makes a profit on flash. You have no way of knowing, and the only indications (among which analyst quotes, and indirect figures in previous earnings reports) that are available over the last couple of quarters point towards Intel loosing money on flash like water down the niagara falls. Please do feel free to keep on ignoring that. Also please do not break the trend in forgetting to back up your flash-might-make-profit claims; I'm a bit worried that might mess up your image. Kind regards, RInk