Replies to post #36568 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[alan81]

<pedantic>Actually they did not,
As some of them are conversions, so they did not really build them for 65nm did they?</pedantic>
Note that this argument was only offered as proof of your earlier argument about core 2 having "lower yields" than netburst...
You have yet to generate a decent argument about this point, and the one argument you made is full of holes because it does not take timing into account.
--Alan

[ChipGeek]

Here is the exact text of the "Future Plans" column from the link you provided:

D1C: "65 nanometer in late 2006"
D1D: "45 nanometer in 2007"

You are assuming that these 2 events are 1 year apart. If they were really 1 year apart, wouldn't D1D have specified, "late 2007"?

No, they didn't say that, because D1D is focused on 45nm RIGHT NOW. As beamer pointed out, Penryn is the lead 45nm vehicle, and it taped out weeks ago. There will continue to be steppings, dash steppings, and other process tweaks for a full year before 45nm Penryn products are actually sold.

You are the one who is trying to make the number 3 be something besides 3. Good luck with that, but you're not convincing anyone here....

[wbmw]

Re: At the end things are really simple. I said Intel built four 65nm fabs, while it built only three 90nm fabs. Nothing less and nothing more.

True. This is what you said. But there was more, and that "more" is the direct cause of the response you've been getting, but we won't get into the details just now, since it's obvious you are not receptive to constructive criticism.

Re: I provided evidence for this statement.

Here's where you're wrong. You provided a link, and several people here (including myself) took the time to explain to you that the data does not lead to your conclusion.

Re: Best of luck for any further attempts to convince yourselves four is not really four, but more like three. Apologies I won't be of any help in this respect, though. Additions within a range of one hand's fingers is one of my limited talents which i don't want to lose. :)

Your swift exit from this debate tells me a few things.

- First, you are willing to debate what is obviously a highly controversial issue, and then announce you are leaving when you can no longer back up your argument. This suggests that your ego is more important than finding out the truth.
- You are willing to claim that you have more than enough empirical data, but then you don't present it. This suggests you are a liar.
- You pretend to be the victim and claim ad-hom attacks from other people, but you are usually open to throwing out your own witty remarks. This suggests you are a hypocrite.
- You intentionally ignored most of the well thought out responses to your arguments, preferring instead to dwell on a single data point that you could not adequately back up. This suggests that you are disingenuous.
- Lastly, you are most likely wrong with your theory, and the circumstantial evidence above tends to suggest that you already know this. This makes you as dishonest to yourself as you are intellectually dishonest to the people who took the time to respond to you.

With this level of anti-social behavior, perhaps it is for the best that you leave....

[wbmw]

Re: All I needed to prove was four fabs have been built. Because this was all I claimed.

Of all the dishonest....

Are you even aware of your earlier remark:

Core2 architecture has lower yields than Netburst inherently, from its design #msg-15924482

When challenged on this, you claimed:

Don't worry, I have more than enough empirical data about Intel.:) #msg-15925206

When asked to present, you offered this:

Intel built three 300mm-megafabs in its 90nm-node. From a diesize/DD angle one would expect two 65nm-fabs providing the same output. Account for substantial growth you end up with three 65-fabs. In fact, Intel built four. For a reason. #msg-15934821

Then when told the 4th fab was to allow an existing fab to transition to 45nm, and that three fabs are needed to account for larger average die sizes, as well as a growing total market, now you claim that you are done arguing, because all you needed to do was prove 4 fabs.

The facts and history of this debate speaks for itself.