tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post7849487980608162677..comments2023-10-26T15:06:30.940+00:00Comments on AIMeD Corporation: The comeback kid? AMD's Q4/2007Roborat, Ph.Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04845879517177508741noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-24220613562587110252008-02-06T07:36:00.000+00:002008-02-06T07:36:00.000+00:00need to suck some dickneed to suck some dickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-42954410640696730112008-01-31T12:27:00.000+00:002008-01-31T12:27:00.000+00:00hahahaha, although he can pretend himself/herself ...hahahaha, although he can pretend himself/herself to be me, but by just looking at the icon, then you can know whether it is a real me or not. My icon is a 'Blogger icon', while the pretender is with the 'Anonymous icon'<BR/><BR/>by simply copy the whole text, including the icon, then paste, it will reveal it too: <BR/><B>Anonymous</B> pointer said...pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388854963223201475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-5165859616165038682008-01-31T12:21:00.000+00:002008-01-31T12:21:00.000+00:00Anonymous pointer said... Well, you can call m...<I>Anonymous pointer said...<BR/><BR/> Well, you can call me the cum back kid!</I><BR/><BR/>when did I post this??? Anyone know what was the loophole that someone can pretend as me? I know someone did that to Sharikou ... (shit ... now i am linking myself to Sharikou ... :) )pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388854963223201475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-65338940624984681172008-01-25T10:28:00.000+00:002008-01-25T10:28:00.000+00:00Well, you can call me the cum back kid!Well, you can call me the cum back kid!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-16132710022946239402008-01-25T06:03:00.000+00:002008-01-25T06:03:00.000+00:00How many vacations can ruzi force his employees to...How many vacations can ruzi force his employees to take? I doubt theres enough days in the year for enough vacations for amd to make a profit. I'll bet they got that 45nm silicon just like they had those 3Ghz chips too. Theyll be lucky if they get that silicon into anyones hands by Jan 2009. If amd does try to push the clocks up to anything good like 3Ghz theyll fry. amd is finished.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-34142533939064956252008-01-23T16:03:00.000+00:002008-01-23T16:03:00.000+00:00Well, the great thing about all of this is that at...Well, the great thing about all of this is that at some point, these companies have to actually produce and sell a product, and then we can better determine who is right or wrong.<BR/><BR/>A lot of the technical details are over my head, but basic hardware reviews and product availability are not. However, I am grateful for the replies I got to my question. Thanks!Tonushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082528970434639776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-83843847989330330052008-01-23T15:25:00.000+00:002008-01-23T15:25:00.000+00:00"The first 45-nm production wafer rolled off the l...<I>"The first 45-nm production wafer rolled off the line several weeks ago."</I> John Pemberton, the Fab 32 plant manager during a presentation officially opening the new facility.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2206589,00.asp" REL="nofollow">Extreme Tech</A><BR/><BR/>I tried to post this on October 28, 2007, but I got no response Scientia.enumaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279137923346047097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-71193929370554282532008-01-23T15:15:00.000+00:002008-01-23T15:15:00.000+00:00I want to eliminate all the disinformation and con...I want to eliminate all the disinformation and confusion in this entry right now. <BR/><BR/><I>You and Enumae have both asked about 45nm production at Intel. Here is the official Intel FAB 32 announcement from October 25, 2007.<BR/><BR/>I have had some people here argue with me and try to claim that D1D is a high volume FAB. It is not. D1D is capable of real production but only at a fraction of Intel's regular FABs. This is clearly stated by Intel in referring to FAB 32.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what D1D's 45nm output is. But I do have reliable information that they were around 2.5K Wafer starts per week on 65nm. This is 10K wafer starts per month or between 30-50% of AMDs total capacity. It is true that this is small by Intel's standards, but D1D does put out significant volumes. <BR/><BR/><I>"Intel Opens First High-Volume 45nm Microprocessor Manufacturing Factory"<BR/><BR/>"Intel first produced 45nm processors in its Oregon development facility, called D1D, in January and is now moving into high-volume production with the opening of Fab 32."<BR/><BR/>The fastest that Intel could get Copy Exact running on FAB 32 would be 30 days later. This would be November 24. Then it takes 90 days for these chips to be manufactured and distributed. This would be February 22 at the earliest.</I><BR/><BR/>The author clearly pulled this piece of information out of his butt. He fails to take install and qual time into account where tool matching would take place. And 30 days to get the first lot from the starts to e-test is probably optimistic. <BR/><BR/>He is also under the delusion that when F32 opened they were just starting to work on getting the line into production. <BR/><BR/><I>However, a more likely scenario is 60 days from opening for one test batch then an additional 90 days for actual production and distribuation. This would be March 24. This is why I've said that all production so far is from D1D.</I><BR/><BR/>As orthogonal already pointed out, the line was already qualified with risk starts in line when the fab "opened". F32 would be pushing out product by the end of November with an October opening. Sadly, the world doesn't work in the nice leisurely way this author would have you believe.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-4672646586860907432008-01-23T10:11:00.000+00:002008-01-23T10:11:00.000+00:00Giant said... BTW - where did Abinstein go? I miss...<I>Giant said... <BR/><BR/>BTW - where did Abinstein go? I miss his 'insights' into Intel's poor yields and his Si process 'knowledge'.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>I reminded him of these posts, and provided links to about a dozen reviews of the Q6600 'fragging' Phenom by an embarrassing margin. <BR/><BR/>I haven't heard from him since!<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>So ... it is all your faults? :)<BR/><BR/>or he might be busy fixing the TLB bug, asssuming he is professionally involved with that CPU ... after being too busy accusing others as FUDer inclusive of a true AMD supporter in AMDZone.pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388854963223201475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-57798233298350358652008-01-23T04:43:00.000+00:002008-01-23T04:43:00.000+00:00BTW - where did Abinstein go? I miss his 'insights...<I><BR/>BTW - where did Abinstein go? I miss his 'insights' into Intel's poor yields and his Si process 'knowledge'.</I><BR/><BR/>Shortly after all the Phenom reviews were up I grabbed some of Abinstein's old posts including one where he claimed Phenom IPC would be higher than Yorkfield. He even had one post where he told me to "remember my words" when I claimed Phenom IPC would be inferior to Kentsfield. <BR/><BR/>I reminded him of these posts, and provided links to about a dozen reviews of the Q6600 'fragging' Phenom by an embarrassing margin. <BR/><BR/>I haven't heard from him since!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04674699447174785970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-30270316177357876462008-01-23T03:39:00.000+00:002008-01-23T03:39:00.000+00:00'Very impressive, the Intel Mac sales are increasi...'Very impressive, the Intel Mac sales are increasing at an incredible rate."<BR/><BR/>It is impressive (though the stock is/will get pounded anyway), however it is easier to show large increases when you are starting at fairly low levels. This phenomena was also seen at AMD when they started gaining some market share, but it generally is not sustainable as the market share and volumes increase.<BR/><BR/>That said, the early evidence shows the switch to an Intel processor for Apple was a very good move and I could see Apple easily getting to 10% if they are wiling to cut prices a bit. And Intel locking this up for some time was significant - the exclusivity will not likely be permanent but clearly Intel having sole access to 6% of the market was/is a shrewd business move. At this point it is probably not worth Apple's time and effort to have a 2nd source in AMD, but if they grow, Apple will likely fall into the Dell trap.<BR/><BR/>'I really don’t know why you guys even bother to click on the ASSHOLES website and read his bilge. This man is beyond ridicule'<BR/><BR/>For me it is comical for someone so ignorant (in the true sense of the word) in certain areas comment so authoritatively on them and not even realize his mistakes even after folks try to correct him - it is simply amusing and a good study in fanboy psychology. It is also humorous to watch his 'following' (for lack of a better word), simply accept whatever he says without evidence and dismiss anything that contradicts him. I love the empty 'excellent analysis as always' comments.<BR/><BR/>BTW - where did Abinstein go? I miss his 'insights' into Intel's poor yields and his Si process 'knowledge'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-32295277452630129102008-01-23T01:48:00.000+00:002008-01-23T01:48:00.000+00:00I really don’t know why you guys even bother to cl...<I>I really don’t know why you guys even bother to click on the ASSHOLES website and read his bilge. This man is beyond ridicule.</I><BR/><BR/>To put it simply, the level of misinformation offends me on a professional level and I feel a need to correct the errors somewhere that open minded individuals might find the real information.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-43491533293747933612008-01-22T23:16:00.000+00:002008-01-22T23:16:00.000+00:00Boy, oh boy, ya gotta hand to Dementia for calling...Boy, oh boy, ya gotta hand to Dementia for calling the INTC delays on 45nM! Man, the clocks, well, all hell must beak loose when ya get ‘em over 4 Gig! And, the price is so terrifyingly high!<BR/><BR/>I really don’t know why you guys even bother to click on the ASSHOLES website and read his bilge. This man is beyond ridicule.<BR/><BR/>As a side note:<BR/><BR/>AMD, be afraid, very afraid.<BR/><BR/>http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/<BR/>ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10007603<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.newegg.com/Product/<BR/>Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>SPARKSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-31601997021826985972008-01-22T22:23:00.000+00:002008-01-22T22:23:00.000+00:00CUPERTINO, California—January 22, 2008—Apple® toda...<I>CUPERTINO, California—January 22, 2008—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2008 first quarter ended December 29, 2007. The Company posted revenue of $9.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $1.58 billion, or $1.76 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $7.1 billion and net quarterly profit of $1 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 34.7 percent, up from 31.2 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 45 percent of the quarter’s revenue.<BR/><BR/>Apple shipped 2,319,000 Macintosh® computers, representing 44 percent unit growth and 47 percent revenue growth over the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 22,121,000 iPods during the quarter, representing five percent unit growth and 17 percent revenue growth over the year-ago quarter. Quarterly iPhone™ sales were 2,315,000.<BR/><BR/>“We’re thrilled to report our best quarter ever, with the highest revenue and earnings in Apple’s history,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We have an incredibly strong new product pipeline for 2008, starting with MacBook Air, Mac Pro and iTunes Movie Rentals in the first two weeks.”<BR/><BR/>“Apple’s revenue grew 35 percent year-over-year to $9.6 billion, an increase of almost $2.5 billion over the previous December quarter’s record-breaking results,” said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO. “Our strong results produced cash flow from operations of over $2.7 billion during the quarter, yielding an ending cash balance of over $18.4 billion. Looking ahead to the second quarter of fiscal 2008, we expect revenue of about $6.8 billion and earnings per diluted share of about $.94.” </I><BR/><BR/>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/22results.html<BR/><BR/>Very impressive, the Intel Mac sales are increasing at an incredible rate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04674699447174785970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-57015964643418929222008-01-22T15:49:00.000+00:002008-01-22T15:49:00.000+00:00IDC Unit Share"Processor vendor shares in 4Q07 did...<A HREF="http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21049708" REL="nofollow">IDC Unit Share</A><BR/><BR/>"<I>Processor vendor shares in 4Q07 did not change significantly from those in 3Q07. On an overall unit basis, Intel earned 76.7% market share, a gain of 0.4%. AMD earned 23.1%, a loss of 0.4%. These shares are identical to the shares of 2Q07.<BR/><BR/>By form factor, market share changes were very modest. In the mobile processor segment, Intel earned 81.9% share, a gain of 1.1% and AMD earned 17.8%, a loss of 1.1%. In the PC server processor segment, Intel earned 85.4%, a loss of 0.6% and AMD earned 14.6%, a gain of 0.6%. In the desktop PC processor segment, Intel earned 72.1% share and AMD earned 27.7%; share changes were negligible. </I>"enumaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279137923346047097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-71504916080842852132008-01-22T06:04:00.000+00:002008-01-22T06:04:00.000+00:00I must concede it did serve one very important poi...<I>I must concede it did serve one very important point - as little as he understands about process and technology, he may know even less about financials.</I><BR/><BR/>Now that is a frightening statement, because he knows almost zilch about process. And to make matters worse, he has alienated everyone who does know something about the process side of things and driven them off of his site.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-65152879545517665322008-01-22T04:01:00.000+00:002008-01-22T04:01:00.000+00:00'This just leaves one question in my mind. Why mak...'This just leaves one question in my mind. Why make such a bogus statement in the first place?'<BR/><BR/>Because it is up to readers to disprove ANYTHING Scientia says, while anything anyone else says has to be supported and is assumed to be incorrect. Thus Scientia can simply make up 'facts' to support his already formed conclusion. <BR/><BR/>Conclusion - Intel 45nm is no good... let's see how can I support that? I know, I'll say it is only marginally better than 65nm. I'll also say they have no 45nm mobile parts yet (even though Intel said these wouldn't launch into 2008). Then I'll just say yields are bad because I know it'll be impossible to prove or disprove this statement. Then I'll just sprinkle in something about only D1d producing parts... heck it's not like I have to support any of this crap, I'll just keep throwing up barriers until people give up and support my version of the 'truth'.<BR/><BR/>The more bogus statements you throw out the more likely one is to be correct...even a stopped watch is right twice a day! The other reason is simple denial... he doesn't want Intel to be better at anything, so he will not carefully read any review which might contradict this perception. <BR/><BR/>His discussion on cash on hand (somehow as a metric of health for intel) and his admission of mistakes in that area is also laughable. In admitting his error on the calculation, he completely missed the forest while looking at a tree. Cash on hand for Intel is a useless metric - there is dividend, stock buyback and other cash expenditures which make this less of an ideal metric for evaluating health.<BR/><BR/>I must concede it did serve one very important point - as little as he understands about process and technology, he may know even less about financials.<BR/><BR/>Next thing you know he'll be saying AMD is closing the process technology gap!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-80615166956154272652008-01-22T02:02:00.000+00:002008-01-22T02:02:00.000+00:00On a less happy note for some, it looks like Intel...On a less happy note for some, it looks like Intel is pushing out <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080117-larrabee-becomes-laterbee.html" REL="nofollow">Larabee</A>. <BR/><BR/>The Ars Technica article doesn't give any reason for the apparent slip.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-26786413127438013502008-01-22T01:58:00.000+00:002008-01-22T01:58:00.000+00:00Scientia said...and the power draw is just a littl...<I>Scientia said<BR/>...and the power draw is just a little better than the G0 stepping...</I><BR/><BR/>To which enumae replied...<BR/><I>A 25-30% decrease in power consumption under load is not "a little better".</I> <BR/><BR/>and provided links to back up his numbers. <BR/><BR/>Scientia (to give him credit) replied...<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, I'm going to have to agree with you. The 45nm E8200 at 2.66Ghz does draw 1/4 less power than the G0 stepping 65nm E6550 at 2.3Ghz. And, these seem to both be in the same 65Watt class. That is pretty impressive. So, yes, 45nm is going to be important for Intel for high density server applications.</I><BR/><BR/>So all well and good. He modified his blog to correct his error as well. <BR/><BR/>This just leaves one question in my mind. Why make such a bogus statement in the first place? It isn't like Penryn's power savings is a big secret. The links enumae provided are not new or hard to find. <BR/><BR/>If Scientia has done his homework that poorly on such an obvious, easily verified claim, it makes me question the validity of his other assertions as well.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-73937756632756344532008-01-22T01:32:00.000+00:002008-01-22T01:32:00.000+00:00"Some might also have noticed that AMD has scaled ..."Some might also have noticed that AMD has scaled back its expected 2008 volume from 100 million units to 80-90 million units. "<BR/><BR/>A minor footnote lost in a 100,00 word blog... This is a 10-20% lowering of expoectations and is HUGE! I don't buy the simple, this is because F38 ramp is lower than expected, because if the demand was truly there, AMD has foundry capacity they could use at Chartered! I think this lowering represents a mix of both realization of a slower overall 2008 growth and a softening of demand due to the competitive situation with Intel. Clearly if AMD was back in the 'we're selling everything we can make' hay day of 2006 then they should be able to ramp up the Chartered outsourcing capacity to offset the slower F38 ramp.<BR/><BR/>As usual another bogus argument and more excuse mongering. AMD just had a >0.5Bil cash infusion, if they really needed the F38 capacity and the incredible demand for K10 is real, then they would ramp it more aggressively, or ramp the foundry capacity - the lowering (BY AMD!) of unit volume expectations is not indicative of supply/capacity issues, it is a tell tale sign of lower than previously expected demand! To deny this is simply burying your head in the sand.<BR/><BR/>To put a capper on the supply excuse... <BR/>- 10Mil chips is ~200K per week...<BR/>- let's assume AMD gets 200 die/wafer (nless we are talking all quadcore this is lowballing things)<BR/>- That's 1000 wafer starts per week! (if you factor in dual cores,and more die per wafer this # gets even smaller!)<BR/><BR/>You don't think if they needed to AMD could make this up by increasing starts in F36 or at Chartered! Come on! Yeah a supply/capacity issue!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-74446130089342673302008-01-22T01:14:00.000+00:002008-01-22T01:14:00.000+00:00"...therefore it is reasonable to expect them to g..."...therefore it is reasonable to expect them to go from sample to shipping product on 45nm within ~6 months... If this is the case, is it a reasonable assumption?"<BR/><BR/>Reasonable is tough to say... once again Scientia is using EMPIRICAL #'s and applying them to the future. This is much like saying a stock has gone up every year in the month of Feb, so I should bet the farm on that stock right at the end of January this year and not look at anything else. As always you need to understand the fundamentals behind things in order to make a prediction/assumption like this and quite frankly Scientia lacks the experience, technical education, and real life manufacturing experience to speak authoritatively on this. Simple having a blog doesn't qualify him to make these statements, though it certainly doesn't stop him!<BR/><BR/>So back to the reasonable question... is it possible... YES... is it reasonable? impossible to tell.<BR/><BR/>Here are some factors: <BR/><BR/>1) What is AMD's targets for initial 45nm products. If they do like they did with the 65nm transition (release products at 3-4 speed bins below the previous generation, that increases the probability of going from sampling to production rather smoothly. <BR/>2)If by "sampling" AMD means fully functional chips at their OEM's for them to develop BIOS's, then that also increases the probability. If sampling means they are internall debugging it, that is a whole different story. As usual in AMD' recent history, they choose to be very vague and non-specific with their claims so they can back out of things if they need to down the line.<BR/>3) What yields is AMD willing to live with on 45nm? It is easy to get a few center die yielding and get those die out for sampling. In this hypothetical case, are they willing to start ramping with less than ideal yields for PR purposes? If so this makes the likelihood of going to prodcution better. Keep in mind and functional and sampling chip can be made on a poorly preforming and poorly yielding process... addressing these types of issues (if they exist) can require a lot of effort.<BR/><BR/>So the main risk is that an additional stepping or two will be required - this could completely blow the schedule out of the water and lead to some of the issues you see with K10 schedule. This could be for yield issues, speed path issues, power issues, design issue (with the shrink) to name a few reasons.<BR/><BR/>As 45nm for AMD is essentially a dumb shrink with minimal process improvements I think the risk of things being vastly worse (at least no worse than 65nm already is) is fairly low. Also it is unlikely they will massively screw up a simple, or to use an industry term, "dumb" shrink. And AMD seems perfectly happy spinning out new products under the performance of previous generation through claims of "OEMS and customers" demanding it, so it appears that won't stop them here either.<BR/><BR/>So bottom line it is likely a decent assumption... the flaw in his argument is that 45nm will not be THAT MUCH cheaper than 65nm and the ramp rate will not be that steep - so margin impact will be rather small in 2008, especially as the initial 45nm products will likely be low ASP parts as they will in almost all certainty be non-top bin parts for AMD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-40238297670271958032008-01-21T21:06:00.000+00:002008-01-21T21:06:00.000+00:00http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Pr...http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/<BR/>ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=<BR/>10007603<BR/><BR/><BR/>GET ONE TODAY!!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/>enough said.<BR/><BR/><BR/>SPARKSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-68748264843488588892008-01-21T18:32:00.000+00:002008-01-21T18:32:00.000+00:00you think that Intel is doing a paper launch? You...you think that Intel is doing a paper launch? You think that newegg has no products?<BR/><BR/>CHECK IT OUT: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037&Tpk=e8400<BR/><BR/>Or maybe newegg isn't good enough all of the sudden?<BR/><BR/>TRY HERE: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10007603<BR/><BR/>Oh look... It says "In Stock" for an e8400. That's what we call a hard-launch Scientia, it means that you actually put out a product that people can actually buy on the actual dates that you anounced 6 months ago. I'm getting sick of this bullshit that Intel's 45nm process is somehow completely broken when they've shipped more fully operational 45nm parts in the last 24 hours than AMD will all fucking year.Chuckulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01650506399899501670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-8547872111796139182008-01-21T18:06:00.000+00:002008-01-21T18:06:00.000+00:00InTheKnow said:Perhaps Orthoganal can confirm that...<I>InTheKnow said:<BR/>Perhaps Orthoganal can confirm that F32 (just across the parking lot from F12) is indeed up and operational? </I><BR/><BR/>I didn't realize people thought this was an issue, it was widely publicized that F32 received factory certification and was officially open back in October '07. Risk starts are generally well into the line when that happens too.<BR/><BR/>I honestly have no idea how much product has shipped from there, but it has been going for quite some time now. F32 hasn't reached 100% capacity yet since there are still ramping tool quals at this time, but they are running max wafers for the supported capacity...Orthogonalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03773729604928131840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-58864879636165033732008-01-21T16:54:00.000+00:002008-01-21T16:54:00.000+00:00...therefore it is reasonable to expect them to go...<I>...therefore it is reasonable to expect them to go from sample to shipping product on 45nm within ~6 months... If this is the case, is it a reasonable assumption? </I><BR/><BR/>where are these 'samples' and what conditions are they in? It's fairly safe to make such statements considering how vague the term 'sample' silicon is. One can even argue that Intel at this point in time have 'sample' 22nm silicon. Sure they're not working silicon but hey, it's a 'sample'. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about by making a technical milestones off from a vague marketing reference point.Roborat, Ph.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04845879517177508741noreply@blogger.com