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.

Pastimes : Advanced Micro Devices - Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougSF30 who wrote (337)	12/14/2006 11:11:11 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Respond to of 1141

>> when he wrote that it was one third smaller than his expectations, But it was one third smaller. He expected it to be a 90 nm chip made on 65 nm equip. And therefor the same size as a 90 nm chip. And it turned out to be 31% smaller. So there! Actually, the bit about the shrink was needed to increase supply is not true in my opinion. Supply could be increased just by starting more 90 nm wafers in fab 36. From the way yield was talked about, they don't get many more of the 65 nm chips from a wafer than 90 nm chips. At least with 90 nm they can get higher bins. Personally I thought the entire presentation was negative for AMD. The only possibility of a positive result is that the talk of stable ASP might have been a signal to Intel to hold ASP flat, and AMD promises to do same. Whether Intel will accommodate, or not, will determine margins and stock price for both.