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: Shane Geary who wrote (59911)	5/28/1999 10:30:00 AM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 1573895

Shane, "It is very difficult to predict defect-limited yield, but I would say that >50% yield loss due to defects is dreadful (even early in the learning curve) and that AMD should do a lot better than that. " I agree with you here. In general guessing % yield, even on a mature product, is not trivial. It is easier to guess a range but a 5% difference in yield on the K7 can make a lot of difference on AMD's bottom line. On bin splits: A lot of people question the absolute yield number but I have not heard any serious concern about bin splits. The leaked out data so far suggests that AMD is going to take this segmentation game very seriously. - K6-2 is going to scale in frequency with Celeron - that's why no 500 MHz K6-2 so far - K6-3 is going to scale with PIII and compete upto mid-range PIII(one speed grade behind) - K7 is going to begin at 550 (500MHz parts, if any, appear to be a limited edition deal). The low-end of K7 will compete with high-end PIII and Xeon. The high-end K7 will not have a competition from Intel. Now, all this assumes good execution on the part of AMD - which some smart people question. Time will tell ..... Chuck