News Focus
News Focus
icon url

alan81

11/16/07 11:34 AM

#52786 RE: Sarmad #52782

The issue is as much time as it is money.
$600M is a lot of money and could do a lot of process development. However, it takes time to move material through a factory and then evaluate that material and see what you can learn to make improvements for the next batch of material...Today, Intel has a HUGE advantage here because of the large amounts of money they have spent in the past.
I remember reading some stats on process development costs, and they are going up somewhere between 1.5X and 2X per generation. Another interesting stat is that doing a process node one year earlier approximately doubles the cost. Effectively by doing 45nm a year behind Intel AMD/IBM only need to spend half as much money. If they do it two years it is only a quarter as much money.
This is why scale is currently so important. Intel is up to around $6B/year in R&D spending, so at 100Mu/year that is almost $60/unit in R&D costs. In the last couple of years AMD has grown R&D from about $1B/year to almost $2B/year... and still can't keep up. With around 40Mu/year the $2B/year still comes in at $50/unit... dnagerously close to ASP.
--Alan
icon url

smooth2o

11/16/07 12:46 PM

#52806 RE: Sarmad #52782

re: but it looks to me that process-wise, they are on a dead-end path.

The one that they have is not broken, it's just lame and maybe not up to Intel's process, but they can produce a lot of product at lesser margins. And, they can shrink to 45nm. It looks like a great boutique process...

Smooth
icon url

Golfbum

11/16/07 9:11 PM

#52901 RE: Sarmad #52782

so far it appears to be an infinite amount of money since no one yet has claimed a 45nm process similar to intel's.

it might just be not available at any price for a few more years.

gb