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: StockMan who wrote (31332)	4/7/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571405

>>A fully depreciated Fab is more cost effective than one with new equipment. Part of the overall cost of the product includes the cost of the Fab. Thus .35u products can be cheaper than newer .25u Fab products.<< Well, not exactly. If that were strictly true, there would be no reason to go to smaller feature sizes. A fully depreciated 0.35 micron fab has a lower cost per wafer than a new 0.25 micron fab. However, a 0.25 micron fab gets significantly more die per wafer, so the cost per die is less. (Assuming lots of things, particularly comparable die % yields in both fabs.) Moore's Law, which is the foundation on which the entire industry's business model rests, relies on this reduction in cost per die. It states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 18 months at no additional cost to the customer. Katherine PS However, in the case of Intel vs AMD specifically, you also have to figure in things like Intel having already fully amortized the development and production ramp investments in older parts, and AMD still being in the very early stages of the 0.25 micron learning curve. Far too many variables for a simplistic 0.35 vs. 0.25 micron argument.

To: StockMan who wrote (31332)	4/7/1998 10:04:00 PM
From: Maxwell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571405

Stockman: <<A fully depreciated Fab is more cost effective than one with new equipment. Part of the overall cost of the product includes the cost of the Fab. Thus .35u products can be cheaper than newer .25u Fab products.>> Are you nut man? You don't know what you are talking about. You get 2 to 2.5X more dice out at .25um than at .35um. The cycle time (time it takes to make) of both products are about the same. You get more revenue per die on .25um than .35um. So what if your fab is fully depreciated. The accounting NOW may not show cost saving but over the LIFE time of the fab, YOU MAKE MORE MONEY ON 0.25um parts. I suggest you go to college. There are alot of smart people there. BTW, only a fool like you would disable the L2 cache of the K6 system. Maxwell

To: StockMan who wrote (31332)	4/8/1998 1:37:00 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571405

S, <A fully depreciated Fab is more cost effective than one with new equipment> Huh, they're the same fab. In fact Sanders said it would cost money to remove the old equipment. Sanders said in CC, "All wafer starts on quarter micron by first week of May," so clearly the 0.25 conversion has been accelerated, since July 1 had been mentioned previously. Accelerating the conversion may push the mobo makers to making the 100 MHz AGP boards and/or modifying their boards to at least support the lower K6 voltages. The reason for making the 0.35 chips is to fulfill existing commitments, not because they are cheaper to make, and because its logistically impossible to convert a fab all at once. Petz