SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (187716)2/19/2006 5:57:35 PM
From: combjelly
of 273544
 
"I imagine that's how AMD can price its chips below intel's and still have a profit"

Nope. AMD has lower costs over all, and this has been true for a long time. It has far fewer people, a lot fewer buildings, less corporate structure. If processor ASPs are at $100 for AMD it can make good money. If Intel's ASP ever drops to $100, they will bleed deep, wide rivers.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: neolib who wrote (187721)2/19/2006 6:02:27 PM
From: combjelly
of 273544
 
"Is there a significant cost improvement just from 300mm vs 200mm even at the same 90nm"

It depends on what you mean by "significant". It costs more or less the same to process a 300mm wafer as it does a 200mm. Not precisely, but close. The wafers cost more, but out of ~$3k, a wafer might be as much as $300, maybe less. However, you get 2.25 t0 2.5 more raw die per wafer.

So your raw die cost might drop from $10 to $4.

Edit: ok, make that $15 to $7. Assuming 150mm^2 die and a processed wafer cost of $3000.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: neolib who wrote (187721)2/19/2006 6:54:32 PM
From: Petz
of 273544
 
re: Is there a significant cost improvement just from 300mm vs 200mm even at the same 90nm, I mean in addition to the well know edge effect?

Obviously, yes. AMD can make 50% more dual core CPU's on 12" wafers than it can make single core on 8" wafers.

Petz

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Petz who wrote (187730)2/19/2006 7:51:13 PM
From: Paranoid
of 273544
 
Huh? I thought the surface area was 225% larger for 300mm wafers and the number of chips went up 240%. Cost wise I keep hearing 25% - 30% increase in cost for 300mm.

Area = pi*r^2

100mm^2*pi = 31416sq mm
150mm^2*pi = 70686sq mm

31416sq mm * 225% = 70686sq mm

So, 300mm wafer is 225% larger than 200mm. The number of chips goes up 240% but I am not sure how that is calculated.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Paranoid who wrote (187731)2/19/2006 8:23:12 PM
From: brushwud
of 273544
 
Re: AMD can make 50% more dual core CPU's on 12" wafers than it can make single core on 8" wafers.

Huh? 300mm wafer is 225% larger than 200mm. The number of chips goes up 240% but I am not sure how that is calculated.


The wafer area goes up by the square of the diameter, but the unused wastage near the circumference goes up only linearly with the diameter. I think Petz is implying that a dual-core chip is itself 160% bigger than a single-core.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Paranoid who wrote (187731)2/19/2006 8:40:43 PM
From: DRBES
of 273544
 
u sure it is not 140% ???

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: combjelly who wrote (187728)2/19/2006 9:21:59 PM
From: DRBES
of 273544
 
do not look over your shoulder intel...someone might be gaining on you
Satchel Page

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: combjelly who wrote (187728)2/19/2006 10:15:50 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz
of 273544
 
>> Nope. AMD has lower costs over all, and this has been true for a long time. It has far fewer people, a lot fewer buildings, less corporate structure.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I imagine that lean operation comes from surviving the many years of low profits. I don't suppose there is a point in asking why that same lean corporate structure didn't help the flash memory operation.

Thanks and good luck to all who responded to my posts. I can now appreciate the source of enthusiasm for the stock price.

Sarmad

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (187735)2/19/2006 10:34:40 PM
From: combjelly
of 273544
 
"I don't suppose there is a point in asking why that same lean corporate structure didn't help the flash memory operation."

There is. Realize that flash was about 50% of AMD's business until recently, and about 7% of Intel's...

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: combjelly who wrote (187736)2/19/2006 10:40:33 PM
From: grimes
of 273544
 
"Realize that flash was about 50% of AMD's business until recently, and about 7% of Intel's..."

Bingo. THEWATSONYOUTH predicted the consequence of that reality 6 months in advance. Where is TWY btw?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.