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: Magrathea who wrote (219893)	12/10/2006 8:50:17 AM
From: bobs10	Respond to of 275872

you: Let's suppose AMD gets their 65nm process up to 60% yield or 240 good die/wafer. Each wafer would be yielding more die than the 90nm process could theoretically make. Is ANYONE going to say "Nope, the percent yield of 65nm is not equal to the 90nm process, 65nm is just not ready for production??? At 60% yield, 65nm would be producing 50% more die per wafer than the 90% on its best day. What are you waiting for? me: Nice post, lots of good common sense. As it makes sense to change to new processes just as soon as it is more profitable than an older one, what does that say about INTC's snail like conversion process? This question seems especially apropos given the inherent volume advantage 65nm should provide. Given the above it's hard to see how INTC's slow intro could be part of some sort of INTC design and not the result of problems associated with the 65nm production process. The real question seems to be just what those problems might be since sufficient capacity is all but ruled out. Given what I know, the only answer that seems to cover the situation is that 65nm yields are not up to 90nm process standards yet. If bin splits were the problem we would expect to see a rapid move to CMW in the low end as INTC down binned and stopped producing P4s? Further, It's hard to see how other costs related to 65nm processing could be sufficient to out weigh what should be 65nms inherent advantages. Finally, since delays just give AMD more time to respond, one can hardly attribute the slow-go intro to a misguided marketing event. In the end, as Sherlock Holmes said "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

To: Magrathea who wrote (219893)	12/10/2006 12:38:50 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> I think these 3 assumptions are false. [1]Hans has already established that some parts of the K8 will not shrink with the node -- the ODMC is one he singled out. Therefor, Hans, and by extension, you, are supporting the idea that 65 nm will not bring the full extent of cost savings implied by a nominal 50% shrink. >> [2]Makes no sense. Let's assume a 90nm design fits 200 die on a wafer. And that it "yields" 80% good die at saleable specs....... Your computation is unrelated to my saying "implied in the expectation that conversion from 200mm 90 nm to 300mm 65 nm process brings 40% per piece cost savings, is the assumption that %-age yield is the same as 90 nm yield for un-shrunk part." >> But it makes ECONOMIC sense to start producing 65nm when you can yield >160 per wafer (at the same bin splits) which implies a yield of only 40%. only if you ignore cost of building (or converting) the fab. The $2.5B (or close to it), plus operating costs have to be paid from profits. But I think in the case of AMD they will be paid from government subsidies and stock sales. >> [3] Why should new parts on a new process be expected to be better than an older process tuned with the experience hundreds of thousands of wafers? Again, if you expect that the 65 nm part will reduce cost (and therefor improve margin), it has to bring in sufficient ASP to maintain or improve margin. If the 90 nm top bins were fetching $1000/each, and the top 65nm bins are fetching $300/each, the only way to maintain or improve margin is to increase volume substantially. >> What the heck is meant by "Mature Yields" anyway? Beats me. I expect it implies some version of "good". In the hierarchy of bragging terms, I think it is below "world class".