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: Rink who wrote (219645)	12/8/2006 1:11:54 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

It doesn't necessarily mean that. If Intel could magically change any P4s into CMW, would that be enough for them to do it all at once? There may also be chipset & board constraints, no?

To: Rink who wrote (219645)	12/8/2006 1:13:51 PM
From: tecate78732	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

did Elmer CLAIM these things or did he suggest these MAY/COULD be things that happened? I've not interpreted any of his postings as speaking for Intel or 'in the know' as your post sounds.

To: Rink who wrote (219645)	12/8/2006 1:21:39 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Rink I think Elmer both claims that CMW yields are 'excellent' (right Elmer?) and that there is idle capacity (quote above). No. I make no such claims. How many times do I have to say this? The exchange you quoted was a follow on from a previous post based on a hypothetical situation. Message 23081903 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. 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.