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: dr_elis who wrote (254806)	7/25/2008 9:51:33 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

dr elis While you're saying that Intel's TPTs are poor compared to AMD's, Intel is saying their TPTs have dramatically improved over the last couple of years. Intel is also saying that their yields are better on 45nm than they were on 65nm. Not just in terms of total good die out, but as a function of defect density. Clearly you and Intel can't both be right.

To: dr_elis who wrote (254806)	7/25/2008 8:22:25 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Dr_Elis: The reason why AMD didn't use 193i scanners is that they were not ready for production yet. The tools were just getting there, but were not yet qualified. It took a lot of work by both IBM and AMD to solve problems like bubbles in the immersion fluid. That is why Intel got a 9 to 12 month lead on TTM. OTOH, the disadvantages, the lower yields and lower production rates will soon come to roost. It was fine while 45nm parts got such a premium. Now that AMD will have a higher yielding higher throughput 45nm process, these disadvantages come to the fore. So Intel will now have to solve those same immersion problems that IBM and AMD faced and get the tools into their plants. They need them for the 32nm process (really a 25 by 45nm process). Yes AMD and IBM have to make a similar process, but adding DEDP to an existing good process is much faster than getting immersion to work. Then they will be both at the same process level for quite a while. Whenever that happened, Intel lost marketshare quick to AMD. The one possible trouble to that scenario is that AMD/IBM consortium will have a breakthrough on EUV. 22nm almost requires EUV. Even advanced 193i won't make 22nm without QEQP with very large losses in yield and throughput. Intel disdained EUV and is well behind the AMD/IBM consortium. Intel being behind on process is something we have never seen. One other factor to consider is that process shrinks are getting slower and slower. This has not been taken into account by many so far. Likely the foundries catch up and everyone will have access to the same high performance process at a given node. Having your own fabs may become a millstone then. Likely at most one fab would be owned to keep the foundries honest or else, two or more competing foundries. Pete