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 : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Adrian Wu who wrote (5691)	4/22/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 6843

All: interesting review of PC industry: stocksite.com Regards, Ali

To: Adrian Wu who wrote (5691)	4/22/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Time Traveler	Respond to of 6843

No, the answer to my and Yousef's question, why the Q1'98 production of K6 and predicted quantity of production of K6 and its variety does not reflect a yield solved scenario, is not that simple still. Despite we won't see the bulk of 0.25um products until mid to late Q2, it still does not explain why Q1's 0.35um production, benefiting from solved yield problem, did not increase at all. This is a perfect case of brushing dirt under the carpet. 0.35um is soon obsolete which AMD know that. Declaring a yield problem solved is a wonderful way to start from scratch (0.25um), yet chances are very high that the problems associated with 0.35um still haunt the 0.25um. Allow me to remind you about the K5. The history repeated at least twice so far. The situation here is very similar. Check out Petz's old post, Message 4017872, on predicted K6 production. This still does not reflect the exponential increase in production if there is indeed a yield problem solved. Time Traveler