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: wbmw who wrote (248643)	3/12/2008 3:58:41 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

It's unlikely that Intel created a whole new design just to supply Celeron 220 products. It's far more likely that in order to justify the design and mask expense, that Intel would sell this single core design into as many high volume markets as they can. That would logically include Celeron 400 products. Total bullshit. Celeron 220 apparently is a low voltage ultra low power part suitable for passive cooling. I think it goes into a micropackage......thus the need for a newly designed small single core chip. It was introduced AFTER the 400 series for the mini-itx boards targeted to the sub-value market segment. See en.wikipedia.org Clearly MUCH lower volume at this time than the 400 series which came earlier. I won't deny that it's possible that some Celeron 400 parts are Millville die, while others are disabled or defective Allendale die, but no evidence exists to say with conviction that Intel is producing meaningful volumes of defective dual core parts. You won't deny it because you can't deny it. Of course, someone has to rub your nose in it before you admit you won't deny it. So......let's now rub your nose in it a bit more. Even IF the blended yield for C2D was 80% (it is not) which in itself would REQUIRE defect densities below .2D/cm^2, Intel would still produce around 12 MILLION defective dual core parts per quarter given an 80% dual/quad core product mix. Now does anyone but wbmw claim that this volume (that's 12 million per quarter) is not a meaningful volume? Can anyone claim that with conviction? Anyone? Anyone at all?? The OVERWHELMING volume of Intel single core 65nm parts is currently derived from DEFECTIVE dual core C2Ds. Once again, the hypocrisy of the Intel FUDsters knows no bounds. THE WATSONYOUTH