Dan, Re: "Out of one side of your face, you claim that copper is of no benefit on .18, while out of the other side you insist that .18 copper and .13 copper processes produce the same speed chips. Make up your mind. "
Elmer has not been inconsistent with what he has said, it is only you who have decided to ignore all that has been said on this board for the past few weeks. Elmer's points, and others from process experts, engineering experts, and observant readers, has been the following:
- Copper interconnects have not been necessary for Intel's .18u manufacturing process to reach high frequencies.
- .13u features, such as smaller gate widths, have enabled AMD to get higher speeds and lower power dissipation on their .18u manufacturing process, not copper quite as much.
- AMD's bulk .13u process will probably not give their chips the same boost in performance as Intel's .13u process will give them, due to AMD already having .13u features on their current process.
- By most accounts, AMD's processors seem to have lost steam. In the latter part of last year, they reached, and then exceeded the Pentium III with the Thunderbird core with several releases one after another. 1.2GHz in late 2000, a slightly late 1.33GHz in early Q1, followed by a slightly late 1.4GHz in late Q1 suggested the largest ramp in the processor line. But the 1.53GHz speed grade was supposed to follow right away as well, and has been delayed for many months. If you want to consider AMD's desire to be ahead of the performance of Intel's latest offerings, then that 1.53GHz part should have already been released. Elmer's point, and one which many people here agree with, is that the TBird core, and probably the Palomino core, have hit their limit for .18u manufacturing. I realize that you seem to think otherwise on a number of counts, but you should probably not count your chickens before they hatch, in this case.
wanna_bmw |
