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: pgerassi who wrote (219973)	12/11/2006 8:00:50 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Pete, >> Intel did not get a 40% reduction going from P4 to CMW on the same process. I didn't make that claim. Nor is it an assumption for my point. My point is: The reason why people assume that 300mm combined with 65 nm is a good thing is: It is expected the combination will result in a saving of 40% of cost when compared to same chip design in 200mm 90 nm. The assumptions underneath this expectation are: 1) the 300mm fab is at full utilization. 2) the 90nm => 65 nm shrink is a full shrink. Resulting in close to 50% reduction in area. If AMD's progress from fab 30 to fab 36 (and 90nm => 65 nm) has met these assumptions, they would have achieved 40% cost reduction per unit. If they have not, then the cost reduction is less. Per like unit ASP's have already fallen about 40%. Regardless of who initiated them. I am asserting that AMD did not meet the full util and full shrink assumptions needed for full cost reduction. So, AMD's margins will fall. They already fell in q3. My conclusion is there is no reason to expect them to recover in q4. Contrary to what AMD claimed in their q3 CC. We will know whether I am right or wrong when q4 results are published. Sarmad