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 : Stock Swap -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (14862)	7/17/1998 2:01:00 AM
From: Andrew Vance	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17305

AV--I read the link and they seem to think full 300mm production is in the 2002 timeframe. What I am stating is an additional 3 year delay. I think that 400mm is a pipedream that extends to beyond 2005 for a number of resaons. 1. The cost of the wafers and the equipment will be just as astronomical as the 300mm initiative. 2. After the 300mm initiative, the entire equipment industry will need at least 3-5 years to recoup all the money spent to develop 300mm processing tools. 3. I would also hazard a guess that 400mm equipment will be a new platform and not leveraged off the 300mm platform. 4. Only the low mix, high volume producers of ICs would even attempt 400mm. This means it will be relegated to DRAMs, MicroPs, SRAMS, EPROMS and not on the growing field of ASICs. 5. So even if 400mm does come into its own, there will be a significant part of the industry where it would not make sense. 6. Example of above. A decent ASIC supplier might ship 500 wafer per month of a certain IC at the 150mm wafer diameter. At 400mm, you would only have to ship around 70 wafers per month. But what about the majority of these high mix low volume places that would be crippled with inefficiencies when you havelot sizes less than 20 wafers. Too many risks of not meeting customer committments if mistakes occur. 7. It is my opinion that the risk/reward ratio for using 400mm wafers will not justify itself for a nice portion of the industry and will benefit only the high volume producers. Even that is questionable when you consider the dramatic price erosion of the DRAM from the %50 range to the $2 range. 8. The DRAM industry already has a great deal of overcapacity that is being diverted to non DRAM prodiction. These wafer fabs are running into the BILLIONS of dollars as opposed to the older fabs that were built for under $250 Million. There is too much of a discrepancy here that it is possible some of the newer fabs will never really pay themselves off. I think for this above reason we have seen a hard look being given to COO (Cost of Ownership). 9. After donating a kidney for 300mm by the equipment sector, I can almost guarantee they will be reluctant to give up a lung for 400mm with sufficient recovery of their financial health. I am not playing a hunch here about the pushout. I have it from what I consider a very good and reliable informed source. There is frustration by the chipmakers that the suite of tools have not been forthcoming since they factored the availability into soem of their plans. Even INTC decided to put a program on hold and just go forth with 300mm, only to decide to move forth on 200mm and then put the facility on hold due to SEA. The equipment guys are fuming since they are noot getting the high degree of government funding through SEMATECH to defray much of the costs for developing these tools. The equipment secotr is not getting the type of cooperation they desire to move forth and the end users are not firmly committing to purchasing the 300mm suite of tools. The equipment sector, as I stated, is probably staging a rebellion. they have been stretched out to much by the desires of the industry and are probably trying to regain control of the insane asylum. They seem to want to dictate when the industry will be ALLLOWED to go to 300mm instead of the industry dictating when they have to be ready for 300mm equipment deliveries. I think the equipment sector is trying to position itself back to profitability with tools they can make and make a decent profit on. they have not gotten full value out of the 200mm program and have finally gotten that suite of tools optimized. At least I take a position for what I believe. Only time (and a crystal ball) will tell. But to turn things around, the 200mm equipment set has got to find its way to more and more IC fabs. The SEA crisis may be a blessing down the road since it might be the catalyst to obsoleting many of the 4", 5", and 6" facilities due to manufacturing efficiencies. If all the sub 200mm fabs were upgraded or refurbished ala INTC's policy, there would be a huge turn around in the equipment sector. Andrew