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: Process Boy who wrote (53874)	4/2/1999
From: Mani1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571398

Process Boy Re <<I'm sorry, but at this point Intel is in a class by itself with regard to manufacturing capability and adeptness>> Nothing to sorry about Process Boy, I agree with you 100%. Also INTC has 100 times the market cap of AMD while only 4 times the market share. Of course it is not really fair to compare the two like that since Intel has high ASP's, fat margins, strong balance sheet, ... AMD arguably has a better design team than Intel, they are gaining market share and closing the performance gap. I guess it is all matter of perspective. Good luck Mani

To: Process Boy who wrote (53874)	4/2/1999 12:54:00 AM
From: Yougang Xiao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571398

Process Boy: <<For the market AMD is in, they would need to build at least one to two more fabs to effectively compete,>> Interesting commnet! Would the new fab(s) you suggested creat excess capacity for AMD given their unit volume capacity from fab 25 and 30 can reach their goal of 30% CPU unit volume market share in late 2000 or early 2001? Welcome!

To: Process Boy who wrote (53874)	4/2/1999 12:26:00 PM
From: Shane Geary	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1571398

Re: " AMD is in, they would need to build at least one to two more fabs to effectively compete" That's really the point. This thread is so polarised now that people won't believe it, but AMD are quite well respected for process technology (and, yes, process control) by those who actually work in the fabrication side of the industry. For example, in my area of expertise AMD have (well, up to very recently) two of the very top-tier process guys: Harry Levinson and Bill Arnold. Both are extremely well published (unlike equivalents in Intel, but that's another issue) and respected in the industry. Bill Arnold was the chair of the lithography section of the National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (1997 edition) although has recently left to become Chief Scientist at ASML. Harry Levinson is manager of next generation litho at AMD and has written seminal papers on the subject over many years. Yes, AMD have had process difficulties. No fab in the world avoids that. Availability of new high-end Intel processors have often been extremely limited at their introduction. AMD's problems are magnified by the fact that they have no die stock - their manufacturing resources (wafer starts/week) are so limited that manufacturing difficulties translate immediately into customer delays. The posters who refer to others on this thread as 'idiots' and 'losers' will have you believe that AMD's process is pathetic - that is far from the truth. With respect to continuously upgrading Fab25 - it never will be as good as a brand new fab with the same equipment.In any case, in a couple of years AMD will have to invest in a 300mm fab to remain competetive. That will cost far more than Dresden up front, and they certainly will not upgrade fab25 to 300mm. Shane