Kate, re: AMD fab capacity.
Another article confirming his doubtful reputation.
They had a little gathering to talk about it, and as we greatly suspected, said nothing more about 65nm conversion than they have in the past. Indeed, if anything they indicated a bit of a delay, now saying that 65nm conversion will be "substantially" rather than "completely" converted to 65nm by the middle of 2007.
AMD always said it would be 'substantially converted to 65nm' by mid 2007 because fab 30 will keep producing 90nm chips and won't be converted to 65nm. There isn't a single quote that I'm aware of that AMD claimed it would be fully converted to 65nm by mid 2007.
What they don't explain is why AMD outsourced production to Chartered rather than convert Fab 30 to 65nm. Obviously, Chartered isn't doing this for nothing.
The only conclusion one can reasonably draw from this is that AMD couldn't afford to build Fab 36 and convert Fab 30, so they'll pay Chartered extra for some extra capacity.
Nah. Fab 30 was made for 180/130/90nm. As I understood it the conversion to 65nm is non trivial for this particular facility (will require more changes and hence more resources, time, and space than previous conversions in that facility). Consequently, even if more fab capacity would not have been needed AMD hardly had a choice but to build a new fab (fab 36).
Chartered's fab 7 only provides the flex capacity in that chart that Ed copied; fab 7 isn't only producing for AMD. In case AMD uses fab 7 it runs it's own facilities at close to 100% capacity (and hence maximizing profits from it). Flex capacity from Chartered will no doubt be profitable as well (as otherwise there is no reason to use it). I think this is a very sound business model for AMD.
So instead of Stroligo's "only reasonable conclusion" I think that it's more reasonable that it's just economically more sound for AMD (considering both costs and risks) to use Chartered than to convert fab 30 to 65nm and use the additional capacity from the shrink for flex purposes. Stroligo's singular conclusion that AMD isn't capable of raising the required money is narrow minded and not supported by any evidence. The fact that he is 'able' to conclude that it's the only possible conclusion is telling. The first step towards wisdom is to know there's simply a heck of a lot you don't know.
In case you disagree I'd appreciate to see the reasons why.
Regards,
Rink
AI
