You are making my point for me. Dixon was the most advanced chip Intel had at the time. It was basically a deschutes with on die cache, but in some ways that was a more sophisticated chip than the just released katmai with off die L2. It was the Willamette of its day.
BULL, look again Dan. Dixon was a MOBILE PENTIUM 2 and had NO ON DIE CACHE. Katmai was a PENTIUM 3, and BOTH were running for quite some time on 0.25u before 0.18u was introduced. Coppermine was the FIRST, intel product to feature on-die cache at any process technology, and it was introduced first for Desktops which was widely reported
Your contention that a Mobile Pentium 2 was more "sophisticated" than a Katmai Pentium 3, which went all the way to 600MHz 0n 0.25u is baloney. They didn't use Katmai on 0.18u because the design was already stressed out at 600MHz on 0.25u, which was again widely reported at the time. Dixon (ie: Pentium 2 - Got that Dan?) at 400Mhz was humming along stable at 0.25u.
They most definitely did not use their best process for a 1 1/2 year old design. I would expect that whatever gets put on the .13 will be an improved coppermine, at least, but it is stunning that those scarce wafers aren't all being reserved for variations of Willamette and Itanium.
They most certainly did Qualify their best process using 1 1/2 year old design. Are you saying the report from Microprocessor News is wrong, and you're right??
If INTC feels it has to ship a version of coppermine on .13 next fall instead of Willamette, Willamette is probably not doing as well as hoped.
Dan
SIGH.... I guess that I have to explain this to you again. It is far wiser to bring up a new process on a product that is working well, than to try and bring up a new process on a new product. I know.... I'm a Semiconductor Manufacturing PROCESS Engineer. It's what I do.... What are YOUR qualifications to speak on Semiconductor Manufacturing? I notice that you don't post an occupation.
SemiconEng |
