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: Yougang Xiao who wrote (27922)	1/16/1998 12:11:00 AM
From: StockMan	Respond to of 1573089

Yougang, Re -- Historicaly, AMD has done well based upon this model. How many processors were manufactured on the .5 and the .35? If this is AMD's version of doing well, I am not surprised at where they are. Stockman

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (27922)	1/16/1998 12:16:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573089

Yougang - Re: "the head of SDC has been assigned to Austin to run the facility for the next year. " I guess "heads" are rolling at AMD (to Austin, at least). Paul

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (27922)	1/16/1998 12:54:00 AM
From: Yousef	Respond to of 1573089

Yougang, Re: "What are your comments regarding the response, particularly, 1 and 2?" I don't have much to comment on item #1 other than my previous post on AMD's process model ... and their problems transferring the .35um process to Austin. Re: "For the most part, equipment is not the issue. It is in the process, which starts with the mask set." This is patently ridiculous ... the equipment is integral to the process. In fact, not having equipment configured (from the same vendor) identically can cause process recipes to be changed to achieve the same result. Intel goes to great lengths to insure that equipment and process stay the same between sites. The statement from AMD should "scare to death" a company like Compaq who is counting on the exact same product (K6's) coming from either SDC or Austin. Based on the way that AMD answered this question, I would guess this means that SDC and Austin have different equipment!! Re: " As the SDC has been consistently successful at its new technology launches, the head of SDC has been assigned to Austin to run the facility for the next year." This is actually very troubling ... sounds good in theory, but not many R&D managers know how to run a Fab. This could be a disaster in the making. I would watch this closely. Make It So, Yousef

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (27922)	1/16/1998 1:39:00 AM
From: greg nus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573089

Xiao, Do you know the name of the head of SDC?

To: Yougang Xiao who wrote (27922)	1/16/1998 1:39:00 AM
From: Robert Walter	Respond to of 1573089

Yougang & Yousef, Here is the answer to Yougang question " specifically whether equipment at SDC and Fab 25 match each other?" The answer is no, and here is a portion of a research report from Sutro & Company, Inc. dated January 14, 1998 "K6 Yields Still Erratic. AMD continues to be plagued by an inability to translate its success with 0.25m wafers at SDC (its sub-micron development fab) in Sunnyvale to Fab25 in Texas. Even though Fab25 has more advanced (though not similar) equipment, Fab25's yields at 0.25m and even 0.30m continue to be erratic. " Robert