Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dan3 who wrote (72316)	9/19/1999 1:19:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) of 1572552

dan - <He mentions the problem of filling voids - is there any benefit to copper over aluminum in this area? Could it be that some of AMDs features are such that copper is more important for them at .18 than it is for Intel due to design?> The aspect ratio of Cu vs. Al is less severe. I will speculate that he is referring to the "difficulty" of filling ILD material between Al interconnect. At the lower ILD layers, gapfill very well may be a big issue for AMD on Al due to their use of M-0 (local interconnect), and the tighter pitches associated with AMD designs, I.e., AMD trades die size at the expense of a more manufacturable design. It's all in the integrated approach. It is often difficult to debate one process vs. another, because of these trade offs. Yes, Cu may afford a lower aspect ratio, but what is the tradeoff in process maturity and process variation? Maybe MOT/AMD has these things licked, but I would still bet a paycheck that Intel's Integrated process has a superior cost/performance ratio to any .18 Cu process. Just my opinion. When I argue for Intel's process approach, I am arguing for the integrated solution, vs. one process aspect vs. another. PB

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next