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: Dan3 who wrote (229952)	4/14/2007 6:19:24 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 275872

Given how well AMD was doing (prior to the ATI buy) running multiple 65nm FABs and selling at a rate of $5B to$6B per year, I'd say those estimates are off by a factor of 3. The context of the comment was that an IDM developing process & fabs for a node must hit something on those numbers. It does not relate to #fabs. An IDM would have to have more than one fab at those nodes to make it pay. It would be interesting to look at AMD's profits from 0.25um (start of K7) until now. You will note that quite a few of the players have teamed on process development precisely because they cannot afford to do so alone. The article was basically trying to argue that the IDM model was dead, or getting there for all but the very biggest players like Intel & Samsung. Other than TSMC, it is getting that way for the smaller foundry players as well. You must team up.

To: Dan3 who wrote (229952)	4/14/2007 9:20:25 PM
From: misen	Respond to of 275872

Given how well AMD was doing (prior to the ATI buy) running multiple 65nm FABs and selling at a rate of $5B to$6B per year, I'd say those estimates are off by a factor of 3. Note that AMD's sales from multiple 65nm FABs (after you net out the sales of video chips, etc. from foundries) are ~$4 Billion per year. If they were grossing $3 Billion per FAB they'd be doing quite well. I interpret "multiple" to mean > 1. Can you enumerate the multiple AMD 65 nm fabs? My understanding is that only Fab 36 is running 65nm and it is debatable about how much 65nm output is being generated. And you could argue that AMD's profitability has evaporated as they started to generate 65nm output -- and given that AMD's revenue is less than what is indicated in the article, the lack of profitability is consistent with the article's thesis. Misen Misen