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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (219002)	12/5/2006 2:34:27 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Well, yes, that definition of "mature yields" is lame. It would even include the case where you get 1 more 65nm die from a 300mm wafer, on average, which would result in virtually no change in production. I'd still like confirmation from a non-Inq source of the ~125mm^2 die.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (219002)	12/5/2006 2:36:14 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

"The whole point of the shrink is to get more revenue per wafer." Yes. "If yield is poor; and the process cannot produce high bin parts," Don't know if either of these is true. Assuming the Inq has it right, then at a minimum they are getting more die per wafer than they are getting at 90nm. How much, we don't know. We also don't know if the process can or cannot bin high clocking parts. Just because it isn't being done that way doesn't mean it can't. AMD very well could be concentrating on maximum yields instead of high clocks. The manufacturer always has this option, but usually the focus is on performance. Which results in more dumpster filler. In addition, they seem to be focussed on lower power, so that is another trade off against max. clock rate. Another thing we don't know is who the source of this article is. If it is Charlie with the info, then that is a lot more credible than if it is Fuad or Theo.