[rescue] Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips

Barry Keeney barryk at chaoscon.com
Mon Jun 20 11:32:44 CDT 2005

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 08:40:17AM -0600, Barry Keeney wrote:
> > 
> >   I've got this info from friends and family who work at the
> > local Intel fab's.....
> > 
> >   Doesn't work that way. With a fab that runs 24x7, 350+ days a year, 
> > every station has someone working it, the equipment is already running
> > as fast as possible. 
> It could be that we are conflating terms, here is an article from
> "Electronic News" that shows what I am talking about:
> http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA410442.html

  It's possible, I was thinking in terms of a high demand chip
(AKA high profit item) in a state of the art fab.

  If current product is just meeting demand, it's unlikely they'll
be able to increase production without adding additional fabs.

from the same article:

TSMC could go to 108 percent utilization rate, but that would not be
sustainable for the long term.

  Short term production increases are possible, but if the demand
isn't short term or exceeds the small increases in production, more 
fabs would be needed.

  High end processors can't be producted in just any fab. Seems
like Intel is always building/rebuilding fabs for the latest 
processor line.

  Now if a major new product, using the same processor, comes along 
it's likely production, thru adding new fabs, would be ready for the 
new product. Nobodys going to walk up and ask for 100,000 processors
a month out of the blue. :^)

  But it's also possible that they're not running at 100% and could
ramp up current fab(s) to meet the new demand. 

Barry Keeney
Chaos Consulting
email barryk at chaoscon.com

"Rap is Square Dancing gone terribly, terribly Wrong...." 

More information about the rescue mailing list