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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (207925)	8/8/2006 1:18:01 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Is it correct to expect the term "fab 36 65-nm production" to initially mean "production of 90-nm designs using equipment capable of 65-nm" ?" No. That is what they are currently doing.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (207925)	8/8/2006 1:28:40 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Is it correct to expect the term "fab 36 65-nm production" to initially mean "production of 90-nm designs using equipment capable of 65-nm"? No. Fab36 is already producing 90nm parts. Would this apply to fab 36 in q4-06 and maybe q1-07 and q2-07? Or would fab 36 output (shipping in December 06) be a true 65-nm product, with the usual reduction in power consumption and smaller device area? The latter. let's accept that fab 36 yield will be similar to fab 30. And that 65 nm production will start in q4 06. Is there reason to expect any cost savings to AMD from this initial production? Yes. Average cost/die will go down as #dies goes up, seeing as how AMD is already paying the cost side, having started accounting for the cost of Fab36 in Q1. Or just more supply at similar (or higher) cost relative to fab 30? See above... There hasn't been "just fab30" for 2 quarters now already. I'm expecting the low utilization (under 50% for now) of fab 30 to negate cost savings, until utilization gets closer to capacity. 50% utilization of Fab30??? Another innocent lapse? Regardless, we've been through this before: AMD is already accounting for the depreciation of the fab, and has been since Q1 when they weren't producing hardly ANYTHING in Fab36. Therefore cost/die will go down as Fab36 production ramps up. It has no where else to go. fpg

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (207925)	8/8/2006 1:36:32 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Sarmad I am not a process expert so my opinion on that subject is not as good as others might be. TWY could be a good source of info if he could keep his bitterness in check long enough to be objective. I really don't know what AMD is actually doing but I'm not as confident in their claims as others here are. I think they're very late to 65nm and scrambling to make use of what they have. For the last couple of process generations AMD has been much later than their long range schedules had claimed. It seems to get worse each generation. A 300mm wafer is cheaper per die and should yield better than a 200mm wafer, not only in absolute terms but the defect density should be lower as well. Intel started 300mm production on their 130nm process, which was in HVM on 200mm wafers at the time. I assume it was to work the bugs out on an already mature process. Wouldn't it make sense for AMD to do the same? Seeing as F36 is new and more to depreciate than F30, wouldn't it make sense to move as much production to F36 as possible, even if it was 90nm, assuming you could?