Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

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 Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

Previous 10 Next 10

To: FJB who wrote (219041)	12/5/2006 3:11:14 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

Dear Robert, The policy change has not yet taken effect. I'll be more than happy to comply once the voting process is done, and the results are tallied, and any change in rules is made. Thanks for your understanding!

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (219044)	12/5/2006 3:12:34 PM
From: FJB	of 275869

I'll be more than happy to comply once the voting process is done, and the results are tallied, and any change in rules is made. Excellent.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: dr_elis who wrote (219030)	12/5/2006 3:13:32 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

Well, Intel is pretty much settled on their 45nm process, as they are producing Penryn samples with it at this point, so something non-immersive must be working to their satisfaction, right?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read

To: FJB who wrote (219045)	12/5/2006 3:15:32 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

Happy to please. You haven't seen any AMD 65nm die photos anywhere have you, by any chance?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (219047)	12/5/2006 3:17:24 PM
From: FJB	of 275869

If I did, I would have linked them already. You aren't in such a state of denial that you don't think AMD is shipping 65nm part, are you? That would be crazy.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (219042)	12/5/2006 3:18:19 PM
From: jspeed	of 275869

No Doug, they are legit. In fact, you have no business creating your half-baked theories when a company like Semiconductor Insights puts their seal of approval on AMD's process.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (3)

To: jspeed who wrote (219049)	12/5/2006 3:21:37 PM
From: mas_	of 275869

Are his theories ever anything else ? ;-)

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (2)

To: jspeed who wrote (219049)	12/5/2006 3:23:36 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

jspeed, please spell out what "theories" you consider to be "half-baked" and why. What is the die size for AMD's 65nm Brisbane parts? Are you saying it is not ~125mm^2, as the Inq claims? If it were 125mm^2, what does that tell you, given that the 90nm size is 183mm^2. What does it tell you that AMD provided no samples to reviewers, no die size information, and no die photos to the public? You are just hurling insults, here. How about some answers besides, "I trust that a company that AMD hired said their process was good."

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: FJB who wrote (219048)	12/5/2006 3:25:49 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

You aren't in such a state of denial that you don't think AMD is shipping 65nm part, are you? I am certainly not making that claim. Why would you think so?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read

To: mas_ who wrote (219050)	12/5/2006 3:26:55 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

Mas! What do you think about AMD's lack of review samples, lack of die photos and size information, and the Inq's claim that the die is ~125mm^2 ? How did that compare with your expectations?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)