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 (219518)	12/7/2006 7:41:03 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

TWY Now, please answer me this. Why would two 65nm fabs that have been in volume production for over a year and at a 75% yield level for CWM not be at full production? But, that is what you are telling me. Explain it You're mistaken about what I've said. In case you haven't noticed I've said nothing whatsoever about what Intel's yields are or what the loading is in any of their 65nm fabs. All I've been doing is pointing out that you've made some assumptions that aren't rooted in any fact we can look at and verify. But, I am willing to discuss this hypothetically as long as you don't make the mistake of believing I am in any way confirming anything not in evidence. So why would 3 (you said 2 but there are 3) 65nm fabs not be in full production? How about limited demand relative to their potential capacity? The third fab which I believe began volume production this spring could easily produce an additional 9 million dual core Pentium Ds even at 50% capacity and non mature level yields. You're right again. It should be able to if yields are what Intel claims. Again, all this proves is that Intel has too much capacity if their yields are in fact what they claim. I'm not saying they are, but you aren't presenting any case to show they aren't either. So you have in 2.5 fabs the capacity for more than the entire Q1 07 requirement at 100% dual core and 80+% CWM. But what are the projections. Less than 50% CWM with millions of single core 65nm Celerons and even 90nm Celerons. I agree. I haven't run those exact numbers but I bet you're pretty close. But what's your point? But, as you say, it can be explained if a significant portion of that 2.5 fab capacity is simply sitting idle despite the ability to yield at 75%. Unless some one can put forth a reasonable explanation for this capacity sitting idle, I believe the more likely possibility that the CWM yields are quite a bit below 75%. So this is your case? The fact that 3 or more years ago when Intel broke ground on those fabs they either: #1 didn't perfectly predict utilization 3 years out in time. or #2 they did predict perfectly and knew they needed that much capacity because they already knew what their yields would be on a undeveloped process that wasn't going to be available for another 2 years. Is that your entire case? Sheesh.....