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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (26444)	12/4/1997 11:44:00 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573900

Elmer, Re: "For all those who ask "what's the big deal?" about AMD boosting the VCC up to 3.3v ..." I think the other important item (which you touched on) is that the "big deal" of raising the supply voltage by .1V is that this change does not address the "root cause" of the problem. My experience tells me that AMD is having a process margin/control problem (I have posted this many times) and my concern is that process parameters could continue to drift to where the K6 at 233mhz will begin to fail at even this higher voltage ... then how will the problem be fixed. I'm sure you are also correct, Elmer that the quality department recognizes this as a "bandaid" type of fix which doesn't sit well with the type of reputation that AMD is trying to portray. This same senario could be replayed with the .25um process in about 6 months. Make It So, Yousef

To: Elmer who wrote (26444)	12/5/1997 12:50:00 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573900

Elmer, your explanation of AMD's Q&A department causing a four month delay in boosting Vcc is ludicrous and claiming that this is the primary reason for an increase in K6-233 parts from 15% to >50% is untenable. 1. Increasing Vcc by 0.1 volts could not possibly affect the speed bin for that many processors. 2. The list of motherboards that support the 3.3v version is mostly made up of brand new mb's that didn't exist four months ago. It, and the list of fans is quite short, and converting any significant percentage of production to 3.3 volt parts would result in a stockpile of waste. 3. How is it that Jerry and AMD Investor Relations predicted exactly when the yield problem would be solved? (They said early November and it happened early November) Answer: They knew this because early November is when the mask change would reach the packaging stage of production. For your analysis to be correct, Jerry and Company would have to predict exactly when the Q&A department would "stop working," as you put it. 4. The premise that a K6-233 at 3.3 volts cooled according to the specifications shown in the spec is less reliable than a K6-233 at 3.2 volts is fallacious. A K6-233 at 3.3volts using one of the 3 or 4 fans in the spec runs at the same case and PN junction temperature as a K6-233-3.2v part using a less capable fan. There is no difference in reliability, only a small cost for the fan. A more likely explanation is that in the midst of the speed bin problem (15% K6-233's, now >50%) AMD spoke to some Tier 1's who were using superior motherboards and fans, and who wanted more K6-233's than AMD could deliver. These Tier 1's welcomed the opportunity to get 233's at the K6-200 price (probably) and everyone was happy. As an AMD shareholder, I am very happy that AMD was able to satisfy their customer's needs at minimal additional cost to either AMD or the customers. The K6-233-3.3v is a total NON-ISSUE. DROP IT. Petz