AMD and Chartered have signed an agreement whereby Chartered will
produce AMD64 processors at its Singapore plant, probably starting in
2006, possibly at the 65nm node, but probably more likely at the 90nm
node.

AMD, Chartered sign sourcing and manufacturing technology agreements
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/busi...e&A=WIR&O=FRGN

NewsFactor Network - - Chartered Semi To Manufacture AMD Processors
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=28276

AMD signs foundry for 64-bit CPU production | The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11...d_outsourcing/

AMD move to Chartered is chip insurance policy
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19566

Yousuf Khan

On 10 Nov 2004 07:41:09 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (ykhan) wrote:

>AMD and Chartered have signed an agreement whereby Chartered will
>produce AMD64 processors at its Singapore plant, probably starting in
>2006, possibly at the 65nm node, but probably more likely at the 90nm
>node.
>
>AMD, Chartered sign sourcing and manufacturing technology agreements
>http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/busi...e&A=WIR&O=FRGN
>
>NewsFactor Network - - Chartered Semi To Manufacture AMD Processors
>http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=28276
>
>AMD signs foundry for 64-bit CPU production | The Register
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11...d_outsourcing/
>
>AMD move to Chartered is chip insurance policy
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19566

Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
close to right.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
> possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
> Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
> close to right.

I don't know, it looks like The Register is only talking about a
possible distant future direction for AMD, not a near-future
direction. It's probably just positioning itself to take credit for
having predicted it several years in advance if it ever looks like AMD
is going that way. :-)

Yousuf Khan

On 11 Nov 2004 07:36:03 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (ykhan) wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
>> possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
>> Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
>> close to right.
>
>I don't know, it looks like The Register is only talking about a
>possible distant future direction for AMD, not a near-future
>direction. It's probably just positioning itself to take credit for
>having predicted it several years in advance if it ever looks like AMD
>is going that way. :-)

IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way! I'm intrigued as to
whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
lawyers are umm, standing by.:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:31:34 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On 11 Nov 2004 07:36:03 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (ykhan) wrote:
>
>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>>> Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
>>> possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
>>> Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
>>> close to right.
>>
>>I don't know, it looks like The Register is only talking about a
>>possible distant future direction for AMD, not a near-future
>>direction. It's probably just positioning itself to take credit for
>>having predicted it several years in advance if it ever looks like AMD
>>is going that way. :-)
>
> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!

No, when you're clueless you throw **** on the wall and see what sticks.
If you;'re wrong, you've not lost anything (you've not dropped below
clueless). If you get lucky you can say, "I told you so", thus are
prescient (something above clueless ;-). BTW, you're never wrong, since
"it's sometime in the future".

> I'm intrigued as to whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"??
> If not I'm sure lawyers are umm, standing by.:-)

Why? I don't see anything important here at all.

--
Keith

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:51:42 -0500, keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:31:34 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 11 Nov 2004 07:36:03 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (ykhan) wrote:
>>
>>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>>>> Looks like The Register is totally out of it here - rambling on about a
>>>> possibly fabless AMD and seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that
>>>> Chartered is a licensing partner of IBM. At least The Enquirer got it
>>>> close to right.
>>>
>>>I don't know, it looks like The Register is only talking about a
>>>possible distant future direction for AMD, not a near-future
>>>direction. It's probably just positioning itself to take credit for
>>>having predicted it several years in advance if it ever looks like AMD
>>>is going that way. :-)
>>
>> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!
>
>No, when you're clueless you throw **** on the wall and see what sticks.
>If you;'re wrong, you've not lost anything (you've not dropped below
>clueless). If you get lucky you can say, "I told you so", thus are
>prescient (something above clueless ;-). BTW, you're never wrong, since
>"it's sometime in the future".

Hey, shitslingers ar everywhere!:-) The Enquirer gets its share of
accusations there but it woud appear that The Register is the real
expert... slinger that is.

>> I'm intrigued as to whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"??
>> If not I'm sure lawyers are umm, standing by.:-)
>
>Why? I don't see anything important here at all.

Hmm, well my understanding is that IBM has a strong licensing
"relationship" (partnership ?) with Chartered. AMD has people working at
IBM's facilities on the process details, present & future; though they did
pay a hunk of $$ to IBM, AMD could not have done 130nm Cu on SOI without
IBM's technology.

The indications to now were that IBM would do the outsourced AMD CPUs and
that IBM has a new 300mm fab which needs its capacity slack used up... and
AFAIK, AMD still has a (Intel imposed) limit on how much outsourcing they
can do. It *could* appear that Chartered is using technology it
borrowed/licensed from IBM to steal IBM's customer... unless IBM has
endorsed the arrangement.<shrug>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!

Yeah, speculate in a big way, that way if it comes true, you're the
next prophet. If it doesn't, then chances were very small that it
would happen anyways.

> I'm intrigued as to
> whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
> lawyers are umm, standing by.:-)

Yes, actually it does have IBM's blessing for two separate reasons.
First, AMD signed a renewal of their deal with IBM about a month back
stating that they will be able to transfer any technology developed
jointly to a third party. Secondly, IBM and Chartered also themselves
partners.

Yousuf Khan

On 12 Nov 2004 11:33:23 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (ykhan) wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> IOW when they're clueless, speculate... in a big way!
>
>Yeah, speculate in a big way, that way if it comes true, you're the
>next prophet. If it doesn't, then chances were very small that it
>would happen anyways.
>
>> I'm intrigued as to
>> whether this deal with Chartered has IBM's "blessing"?? If not I'm sure
>> lawyers are umm, standing by.:-)
>
>Yes, actually it does have IBM's blessing for two separate reasons.
>First, AMD signed a renewal of their deal with IBM about a month back
>stating that they will be able to transfer any technology developed
>jointly to a third party. Secondly, IBM and Chartered also themselves
>partners.

The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald wrote:
> The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
> reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
> by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.

IBM has its own products, plus a few from Nvidia and others that it
produces. Taking on AMD's products would push everybody else's products
off, including its own. That's just a reflection about the volumes AMD
needs, and the size of the die of CPUs.

Yousuf Khan

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:26:37 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> The IBM/Chartered relationship is exactly why I'm intrigued. Your
>> reasoning above may make sense but it's no sign of a definite endorsement
>> by IBM from my POV - IBM has a fab which needs err, work too.
>
>IBM has its own products, plus a few from Nvidia and others that it
>produces. Taking on AMD's products would push everybody else's products
>off, including its own. That's just a reflection about the volumes AMD
>needs, and the size of the die of CPUs.

Hard to know which "stories" to believe here or what corporate politics
could be dominating. The line I've seen from a couple of sources is that
IBM needs to take up slack capacity on the Fishkill 300mm.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??