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: Scumbria who wrote (38678)	10/7/1998 4:56:00 PM
From: Pravin Kamdar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577380

Scumbria, I suspect Kumar is wrong. It's also hard for me to believe that AMD will be hitting the 400 Mhz mark in Q4, but I think there are several reasons to believe that they can. First, execution on the 350 was nothing less than stunning. Second, if 400 Mhz yields were really only 1%, the CC was a perfect opportunity for Jerry to start back peddling a little. Instead, he committed to hundreds of thousands of 400 Mhz parts in Q4. In addition, he stated that the 0.25u process has a lot of speed left in it. I don't think he would have said this if they didn't already have some insight into yielding at higher performance. Finally, he hinted that a 500 Mhz 0.25u part was possible in Q2. All of this leads me to believe that they have tweeked transistor parameters to yield significantly higher performance (than what they thought they could get six months ago). Is Jerry misleading us again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson last year. After the quiet period when they were fixing their process problems, they have delivered on the guidance that they have given. Kumar is really risking his reputation on this one. Let's hope he burns. Pravin.

To: Scumbria who wrote (38678)	10/7/1998 9:01:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 1577380

Scumbria - Re: "Either Sanders is lying or Kumar is wrong. Any guesses?" Neither of them have good track records for accuracy. Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (38678)	10/8/1998 12:48:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577380

Re: "If yields are less than 1%, and they will ship hundreds of thousands, that implies a total production of multiple tens of millions of parts." Scumbria, this is another misuse of the term yields. The term binsplit should be used here instead. An example would be that say AMD has 75% of their die on a wafer testing as good parts functionally at wafer sort. This would be a yield of 75%. Of those parts, once they are packaged and tested at final test, 2% are now defective due to assemble problems, 1% operate at 400mhz and 97% run at 350mhz(I'm just making these numbers up). That would be a 98% final test yield, a 97/98 % binsplit to 350mhz and a 1/98% binsplit to 400mhz. Yield refers to the ratio of functional parts to total parts not differentiated by speed. EP