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 (157073)	4/20/2005 6:27:05 PM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

That's a big NO, Elmer. Everyone here knows Intel has more than sufficient fab capacity (provided that yields are acceptable). People on this board have showed that time and time again, and besides that you are asking for what you know already; so I'm not going to bother. Yet Intel needs to build more fabs because of their "prolonged period of capacity tightness". That, if that analyst report is true that is, can only mean yields are bad. Again: With Intel's rather high current max capacity for 90nm "capacity constrained" does mean extremely low yields. Period. I however was teasing you just a bit. This analyst might have picked up on an incomplete partially wrong picture; they're only human. Personally I'm far from sure Intel is capacity limited, or even experienced any capacity tightness caused by fab limitations. I think Intel could well have been misjudging demand that created tightness in the market, as they have history doing just that. Bad yields are next on the list of possibilities. Not enough 90nm fab capacity remains ridiculous PROVIDED that yields are anywhere near acceptable. Feel free to prove otherwise - I like to see you sweat on this. re: So you realize I didn't [imply that Intel might make profit on flash]. Nope. Next. Regards, Rink