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: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (57590)	5/7/1999 3:23:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571864

Kevin - " No way they can transition all fabs to copper at the same time and maintain production at constant output, especially if they're employing technology along the lines of what will be used at Fab 30." Kevin, Intel is transitioning to .18 on Al (and Cu, for that matter)one time and sticking to it across all fabs. AMD is doing Al in one fab and Cu in another. These are competing technologies, that are not redundant. It is also my contention that two parallel process development at the same geometry is expensive. Scumbria always makes a big deal about Intel's supposed overhead liability. He has also recently stated that designs are cheaper than re-tooling fabs. What about tooling two different fabs for two different process technologies each with its own development program? And this company isn't banging it up in the financials. <That's expensive. PB