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: nuclear who wrote (229935)	4/14/2007 1:54:27 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

nuclear, First I want to thank your for taking the time to post your insight on this board. I am sure I am not the only one who appreciates it. re >> Is there any technological reason intel cannot convert 100% its uP fabs to next generation before AMD? The reason is not technological. It is to maintain some old products, and obey export restrictions (new China 90 nm fab). Probably Itanium production will not move to 45 nm soon, either. Everyone knows that. And everyone knows that AMD-praisers on this board are reduced to scoring nit-pick points. What else can they post ?

To: nuclear who wrote (229935)	4/14/2007 6:34:33 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Nuckear: Better look at the facts before shoving your foot far down into your mouth. The first guy to next generation process have a huge advantage in terms of performance, power (before the leakage thing at 90nm) This is provided the initial lower yield are not so bad that it offset the high ASP of premium SKU. Is there any technological reason intel cannot convert 100% its uP fabs to next generation before AMD? NO Intel hasn't converted to all 65nm yet and doesn't plan on being off 90nm for CPU production until 2008, if not later. AMD will end 90nm this year and be all 65nm in both fabs 36 and 38. AMD will be all 45nm by end 2008 and Intel will still have 65nm CPU production in 2009. You forget just how many CPU fabs Intel has. Just check their web site. And the technological reason is "Copy Exact!" So the correct answer is YES! Does intel not have the money to do it? NO They don't have the money to replace all their CPU fabs and/or equipment from 90nm and 65nm to 45nm. Sure they could add a bunch of debt, but that is not money in hand. So the correct answer is YES! he older fabs continue to produce Celeron, and lower speed SKU. Here you refute your own argument. Those are still CPUs on older larger processes and thus Intel has not converted 100% to 65nm. By your argument here, then AMD is fully converted to 65nm in its newest fab. And the same would be true when fab 38 starts production. But this line of reasoning is logically flawed and isn't what I meant by fully converted. All server, enthusiast, mainstream, mobile and value CPU production (I am not including embedded because of the 5 year guarantee by both companies to produce embedded CPU SKUs) is at that process node or smaller. AMD will have an advantage as they could outsource embedded production to Chartered and still meet their embedded commitments. Unfortunately for AMD, GPU needs leading edge processes as well. Intel is in a worse boat. Even when their GPUs are on their leading edge process, the performance doesn't measure up to old generation value GPUs of their competitors, AMD and nVidia. Pete