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 : Dupont Photomasks (DPMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dlc who wrote (719)	11/14/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: Bookdon	Respond to of 955

One of the problems with evaluating the "high end" mask contribution to earnings is that there are not enough data. Remember that only a few companies are now using high end masks (like Intel), and many of those have their own mask shops, and DON'T buy those masks from DPMI. Although DPMI can use the high-end mask-making equipment and processes to make low-end masks, the associated costs (equipment depreciation, and the like) are high, and that means that DPMI costs are higher for low-end masks than a company like MASK, which uses all lower cost equipment, salary structures, and facilities. The yield on high-end masks can also be a problem. They have substantially higher prices, but may need to be rewritten one or more times. The net profit per mask is therefore hard to estimate.

To: dlc who wrote (719)	11/14/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 955

>>With regard to the Intel prediction, only the critical layers in their .25 micron process require .25 micron masks. You make it sound like all their masks are at .25 micron. Their process technology is proprietary but I will make an assumption based on my days in the fab. Their .25 micron process requires maybe 15 or 20 masks. Out of these I will guess that 3 or 4 are critical layers and require .25 micron masks. The other layers have looser design rules and do not use leading edge masks. So in a given mask set, maybe 20% at most are leading edge masks.<< You are correct, of course. Apologies for not making that clear. Based on your experience, can you compare the "typical" cost to the mask user for a critical level mask vs. a non-critical mask? >>Yes, the industry is going to .25 and below, but with the current level of overcapacity most fabs do not have a huge incentive to get more die per wafer, i.e. increase their production.<< I stand by my original post. See my response to LittleMax at Message 6422675 Shrinks let fabs offer more performance as well as more capacity, and they see this as one way to raise their ASPs. Shrinks are not only happening quite rapidly, they are being blamed for the length and depth of the current equipment downturn. Katherine