| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2887.1 | Interesting | SMAUG::GARROD | DCU Board of Director's Candidate | Mon Feb 07 1994 21:49 | 8 |
| I guess this is what Bob Palmer was hinting at in his quarterly report
this afternoon.
Kind of mirrors what IBM is doing for Intel. Taking on the 486
manufacturing so that Intel and AMD can battle it out on Pentium style
processors.
Dave
|
| 2887.2 | is it reciprocal? | PIKOFF::DERISE | I'm goin' to Disney Land! | Tue Feb 08 1994 09:35 | 1 |
| Curious, does anyone know if AMD has any interest in licensing AXP?
|
| 2887.3 | | BMW318::HARRIS | | Tue Feb 08 1994 10:37 | 15 |
| re: Note 2887.1 by SMAUG::GARROD
There is a very big difference between our deal with AMD and IBM's with
Intel.
Intel licensed the architecture to IBM so they could make design
changes to produce low power parts for portables and the Blue
Lightning triple clocked parts. The deal prohibits IBM from selling
the chips, they can only sell boards and systems that use the chip.
In our deal with AMD we use their design to produce wafers which we
send to them. They package and sell them. It is not clear that we
will even use any of the parts that we make for them.
-Bruce
|
| 2887.4 | Not in near term | GUCCI::HERB | New Personal Name coming soon! | Tue Feb 08 1994 10:38 | 4 |
| I vaguely recall a report sometime back where AMD was to build a new
(expensive) FAB facility in Texas. I also recall hearing that only 3
FAB facilities exisited that were capable of producing Alpha (21064 I
guess) and that 2 were Digital's and the 3rd Japanese (Mistsubishi?).
|
| 2887.5 | | BMW318::HARRIS | | Tue Feb 08 1994 10:50 | 9 |
| > I also recall hearing that only 3
> FAB facilities exisited that were capable of producing Alpha (21064 I
> guess) and that 2 were Digital's and the 3rd Japanese (Mistsubishi?).
All you need is a .75 micron fab to produce EV4 or .68 micron to
produce EV4s. Our technology might be state of the art, but lot
of other people are in the same state.
|
| 2887.6 | | DIODE::CROWELL | Jon Crowell | Tue Feb 08 1994 13:41 | 8 |
|
State of the art is down at 0.3�M.... We're just at the commodity
point. The thing digital knows how to do is push the design given
that technology. Eg; Find anyone else who could run a microprocessor
Oscillator at 500MHz!
Jon
|
| 2887.7 | | BMW318::HARRIS | | Tue Feb 08 1994 15:11 | 4 |
| > State of the art is down at 0.3�M.... We're just at the commodity
> point.
What �processors are produced with a .3 micron process?
|
| 2887.8 | | MSBCS::BROWN_L | | Tue Feb 08 1994 15:17 | 1 |
| .3u is state of the art in RAM fab; @.5u for microprocessors.
|
| 2887.9 | Here's the reason why perhaps ??? | CSCMA::BALICH | | Tue Feb 08 1994 15:40 | 5 |
|
EUROPEAN DAILY -- Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is to supply microprocessors
for Compaq to use in its PCs. This agreement represents a whole new era
for AMD, crushed until now under the weight of market leader Intel.
|
| 2887.10 | | THEBAY::CHABANED | Spasticus Dyslexicus | Wed Feb 09 1994 10:59 | 12 |
|
There is another way to look at this. We have excess wafer fab
capacity we are trying to sell. Also this seems to be a short term
deal given the fact that AMD will have new manufacturing facilities
coming on line soon.
This seems like a quick way to boost the P/L (like taking our vacations
over Christmas) rather than some strategic way to make Digital
profitable.
-Ed
|
| 2887.11 | We have the CORE SKILLS to do a better 486 | DIODE::CROWELL | Jon Crowell | Wed Feb 09 1994 12:05 | 7 |
|
It would make much better sense to me if Digital designed a 486+
machine and produced and sold that... We would get to keep the
profit too...
Jon
|
| 2887.12 | | POLAR::MOKHTAR | | Wed Feb 09 1994 15:36 | 14 |
|
-.1
Would'nt this ( designing a 486+ ) be a major engineering effort ?
By the time we get it in production intel would be 2 generations
ahead ( their P6 is due next year ). Intel does a professional job
of pricing their chips, being that much behind we will lose money.
If it is doable from an engineering side then maybe going the extra
mile and producing a chip that will compete with P6 and is Pentium
compatible may be a better strategy.
My opinion is we could not compete directly using their own
architecture.
|
| 2887.13 | Is this a lawyer joke? | GUCCI::HERB | New Personal Name coming soon! | Wed Feb 09 1994 18:38 | 6 |
| > My opinion is we could not compete directly using their own
> architecture.
Correct, because we'd be spending so much time in court defending
ourselves from Intel lawyers, there would be little time to run the
business.
|
| 2887.14 | Re.11. Don't we already make it? Called Alpha? | SUBURB::POWELLM | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be! | Thu Feb 10 1994 09:01 | 1 |
|
|
| 2887.15 | | MSE1::PCOTE | Progammer-side air bag in place | Thu Feb 10 1994 11:21 | 5 |
|
rep. 14 I think .11 is talking about a clone INTEL chip which can
run the huge array of apps in native mode. I like the idea but then
we can't stamp the INTEL INSIDE logo.
|
| 2887.16 | | YIELD::HARRIS | | Thu Feb 10 1994 12:45 | 18 |
| re: Note 2887.10 by THEBAY::CHABANED
> This seems like a quick way to boost the P/L (like taking our vacations
> over Christmas) rather than some strategic way to make Digital
> profitable.
"NO FACTS JUST ONE GUYS THOUGHTS"
Or how about simply a way to help offset the high cost of bringing up FAB6.
Or maybe Digital wants to sell SQF to AMD after CMOS5?
Or maybe SCO will continue to act as a foundry to help SCO's P/L.
But no matter what the reason, Digital can see some real cash at in a
time that we really need it. If we produce 2M parts/year that sell for
around $300(I think they are currently over $400) we will get some part
of that $600M.
-Bruce
|
| 2887.17 | | BROKE::SHAH | Amitabh "Amend Constitution: ban DECAF" | Thu Feb 10 1994 13:38 | 15 |
| Re. .16
> If we produce 2M parts/year that sell for
> around $300(I think they are currently over $400) we will get some
> part of that $600M.
That's $400 if you buy a quantity of 1 or a few. In quantities of
10000, which most PC makers buy, they are significantly cheaper.
All this, before Intel decides to lower the prices of the 486
to make a market for the new Pentium chips it is bringing out (read
the article in this week's PC Week).
Besides, most of the revenue will go to AMD and not to Digital.
I doubt if we'll make more than $50 per chip produced. It may turn
out to be a good supplier of our own 486 needs though.
|
| 2887.18 | | THEBAY::CHABANED | Spasticus Dyslexicus | Thu Feb 10 1994 15:08 | 8 |
|
I'm all in favor of us making money, but I'd hesitate to hype this deal
too much because it might make some people think we're desperate.
Which we are :-(
-Ed
|
| 2887.19 | Sell whatever we can to make a buck ... | DPDMAI::UNLAND | | Thu Feb 10 1994 16:59 | 16 |
| > There is another way to look at this. We have excess wafer fab
> capacity we are trying to sell. Also this seems to be a short term
> deal given the fact that AMD will have new manufacturing facilities
> coming on line soon.
The deal is a good one for Digital. Fab equipment is hideously
expensive, and having idle equipment in SQF is just another way
that Digital bleeds money. AMD doesn't have their new fab online,
and won't for another 18 months (full production). So it's a match
for both companies.
Of course, if market demand for Alpha ever increases, we would
certainly make more money producing Alphas for ourselves than
making 486s for AMD, but I'm not holding my breath ...
Geoff in Austin
|