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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (219498)	12/7/2006 5:51:33 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

One has already been provided, as combjelly posted to you weeks back, yet you continue this act. Is that not good enough for you? 70 or 75% or whatever the figure was. And as I said, those who know what Intel's yields are laughed at your estimates as wildly low.

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (219498)	12/7/2006 5:54:56 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

TWY Yes you did give an estimate for Intel's yields but I didn't see an explanation for why you thought they were the number you chose. You did an overall analysis and showed (accurately) that there's far more capacity than needed to supply the volumes Intel is known to be shipping if yields were good, but that hardly justifies your conclusion because you can't assume 100% loading, which you apparently did. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusion whatsoever. Based on available information, which isn't much more than Intel's word for it, what reason is there for not assuming they are telling the truth and yields are excellent? After all, they've been shipping volume for over a year now and ramping C2D faster than anyone would have believed they could. That's not a sign of a poor yielding process unless you believe they need all 3 fabs running at full capacity just to produce the number they ship. There's something missing in your analysis and if it's simply that you think Intel is lying then say so but otherwise you're not telling a convincing story.