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 : Spansion Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BUGGI-WO who wrote (3139)	1/23/2008 5:52:01 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4590

re: I still don't know, how Eclipse2 should work in Serversystems with DRAM. Me neither. Some thoughts though: Eclipse contains a very small and simple cpu. That may help with simulating a specific interface (maybe DRAM I/F isn't out of the question?). I wonder what the consequence of that would be for performance. Eclipse 2, could that possibly be based on SONOS? Or, alternatively, NOR is becoming slightly faster with every node which might suffice for some niches where power draw is more important than performance; e.g. at 45nm which is due start '09. Regards, Rink

To: BUGGI-WO who wrote (3139)	1/23/2008 6:06:45 AM
From: Woerns	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4590

@Eclipse2 I guess the use for Eclipse2 in datacenter servers is that you want to have the whole Database reside in memory. Thats why Server customers choose huge amounts of DRAM. OTOH the amount of DRAM and the density of the servers is limited by thermal constraints. I haven't heard of any server systems using LP-DRAM instead of normal DRAM. Probably something like registered LP DRAM does not exists by now. If Viridents memory solution replaces DRAM it may be about an order of magnitude bigger fitting in the same thermal envelope. Interesting that SPSN expects to generate revenue from this architecture in 2008 already (page 3 of the cc transcript, seekingalpha.com ) Regarding the Eclipse for wireless it seems they have only produced inventory. Probably they don't have a customer yet. Maybe that's the point that makes SPSN shareholders worry and has driven the stock down to where it is now. Regards

To: BUGGI-WO who wrote (3139)	1/23/2008 10:56:42 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 4590

Buggi, One last thing to mention. I still don't know, how Eclipse2 should work in Serversystems with DRAM. This whole topic is clowded in heavy dust for me. If I understand it right, Eclipse2 should be extremly fast (read/write too) otherwise this wouldn't make sense. And with current low DRAM prices, NOR prices has to be cheap too just to make such a product happen. Again, I haven't understood what they want to do here and were the difference between this design and an SSD is. I see its on a much "lower hardware level", very integrated into the system and very DRAM-near, but again, I don't know how this should work and what the key benefits are. For me, the SPECS (NOR) has to be so good to make this happen, that I can't believe SPSN could reach this with Eclipse2. Would be too good to come true. Primary considerations for this new aproach are power consumption and cost. DRAM needs to be continuously refreshed, burning power even when nothing is going on. Flash uses no power. The power considerations start to add up if you increase memory size greatly. As far as costs, Spansion claims that Mirrorbit flash cell is fundamentally more efficient to produce. That may be true, but to fully realize this benefit, Spansion will have to have process technology node parity with DRAM, and would have to be much closer in scale to large volume DRAM manufacturers. As you know, we have exchanged some posts (and with Pam as well) on advantage of manufacturing at large scale. As if Spansion read our minds (or read this BBS), Spansion quantified it. Just by going from 2k wafers from 8k wafers, 28% cost savings can be realized. And these are just wafer costs, as in cost of sales. The R&D, and other administrative costs (per wafer or per die) decline even more dramatically. You can easily say that by going from 2k to 8k wafers, the associated R&D costs per wafer drop 75%. Of course, there is some value to be running at full capacity. The incremental expenses to increase capacity, up to fully equipped fabs become smaller and smaller compared to cost incurred to get the initial production going. Also, if you are going to be depreciating the building itself, it is better when the charges are applied against full capability of the building rather than a portion. So anyway, we don't know where we are today, as far as costs are concerned vs. DRAM, but if the Mirrorbit memory cell is much more efficient than DRAM cell, and Spansion executed on the roadmap to become the lowest cost producer, a lot of doors will open. Now, one thing about margins, Fab 25 vs. SP1: It seems to me that both Fab 25 and SP1 are in (some) 65nm production. 65nm sales in Q4 were somewhere between NIL and very small. IMO, Spansion shipped the product from Fab 25, in order to avoid (delay) hitting the income statement with SP1 depreciation. As a result of this (and rising sales) margins went up. There is going to be a seeming (reporting) set back in Q1, in margins as SP1 depreciation starts and SP1 output is still relatively small. Looking striclty at the income statement and balance sheet, things won't look great. But like Spansion did in CC, you have to ask a question, or compare Spansion with or without SP1. Spansion financials would surely look better without SP1, but without SP1, Spansion would be only a little better than a Numonyx. With SP1, Spansion will become a dominant NOR player, IMO reaching 50% of the market in next 18 to 24 months. Joe