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: smooth2o who wrote (219739)	12/8/2006 9:51:41 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Smooth2o: First the original target as reported by news sources was "1 million in 7 weeks" from initial launch date, late Q2. That puts 1 million at mid point Q3. Second, the unit market for X86 CPUs is in the 40-60 million a quarter range depending on what season it is with Q4 being the highest and Q2 being the lowest. Still going by the roadmaps Intel has provided states that they will take about 18 months to convert over. They converted faster on the Willamette to Northwood transition and that also included a process switch (180nm->130nm). AMD will convert to 65nm at Fab 36 in about two quarters. Fab 30 may be making some 90nm K8s, but it will be transitioning to 65/45nm at 300mm as Fab 38 and both (36&38) of them will have more capacity as bump and test is moved to a separate clean room area. The argument wasn't that Intel's 65nm is broken, its that to make C2Ds lowers revenue per fab over making either P4 or CD. Now some of that could be artificial as Intel may be setting C2D ASPs below the most profitable point to attempt to slow market share loss. But shouldn't that be supported by increasing the output of C2D in the same time frame to minimize impact to revenue? I suspect that same effect will happen to AMD (if they ever get their process working, b/c it's not now). This is far more unsubstantiated than the Intel ones above. You have no basis for these claims. Especially since AMD got an Insight award on it already, which means it not only works, but its production parts that were tested and more than passed muster. So you should retract that statement immediately. 45nm is being done in other fabs, so fab cleaning is not necessary. The problem with pulling in dates is that testing and QA gets sloppy and you get things like the P3-1.13, i820 and FDIV disasters. And as for claims of performance improvement, Intel's past track record has been spotty to say the least. CSI is a case in point. As each target date gets close, its pushed farther away. Hows that old phrase go, "its always 2 years away!" Pete