SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)
INTC 35.75+3.6%Nov 24 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Elmer who wrote (106799)8/3/2000 12:50:33 PM
From: pgerassi  Read Replies (2) of 186894
 
Dear Elmer:

That is just the point. Intel is trying to go to the bleeding edge of performance. The models were not tested against that assumption. The Intel "Model" is pushing the limit of voltage using new low cap dielectrics and higher dv/ds due to thin thicknesses. Just because a model works with tried and true silicon dioxides at large thicknesses (about 100A) does not mean it works with thicknesses of 20A and exotic materials. At the ranges discussed, quantum effects begin to take precedence. Therefore the old "model" may no longer be accurate. The original model does not take into account speed loss but absolute failure. A failure probability of 0.05% would assume that your yield would have to be 99.95% and you know that even on mature processes, yield is not 99.95%.

Assuming you mean 0.05% fail within a day after Intel testing of them checked out as good, the current failure rate (in public view) of between 6% and 20% is far higher than that. To get down to the level you say, there would have to be 4000 samples out there. This is not very likely since Intel says that a replacement CPU is not available. To get a 0.05% probability with at least 1 bit of significance requires 10 failures or 20K parts. Intel has not produced the required amount. The 1 GHz Tbird has that amount as does the 933 MHz P3. The 1 GHz P3 is very likely around that threshold by now. Thus, the 1133 P3 is no where near that amount.

Since even Intel can not verify the model works with the current bin of 1133 P3, all your theories are based on assumptions based on CPUs running at Tj of 80C or more with voltages 10% less (current mainline P3s). The only body of knowledge for operation at these more severe operating parameters is that of extreme overclockers. 1133 Mhz is a 13.3% overclock of 1000 MHz. Since the highest stable overclock I know of for a P3 is 1050 MHz (5%), Intel by skipping two speed grades (1066 and 1100 MHz) is taking a big risk. The chickens may be coming home to roost. The highest reported overclock is 1152 Mhz for a 1133 P3, a mere 2.5%. AMD has many reported stable overclocks of 1100 MHz (10%) thus a 1100 MHz speed grade is a far lesser risk.

The assumptions that models work at the margins is one of the classic errors in science.

Pete
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News