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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ali Chen who wrote (36730)9/3/1998 11:36:00 PM
From: kash johal  Read Replies (2) of 1571040
 
I don't want to touch off another flame war between you and Yousef.

But Yousef has stated that one key advantage that Intel has is they have increased the FET drive current. So for a given size device their
transistor will be faster (but also draw more current).

SO INTELS PROCESS IS FASTER BUT NOT AS DENSE AS AMDS. Intels yields are also better as in % of good die per wafer (Paul I think has stated some stunning yield numbers). I also suspect that Intel has a bunch of redundancy of transistors to increase yeilds.

AMD's DIE SIZES ARE ALMOST 50% less so they get more die per wafer (gross die per wafer -- unyielded) but lower net percentage yield.

If we assume that wafer costs are equal and Intels yields are 80%, then AMD's yields need to be 40-45% to NET out same number of good die per wafer and therefore have same die cost. Once (AND IF) AMD can get yields above 45-50% they have a lower die cost.

So who's process is better is an endless argument as each company has made engineering compromises.

What I want to know is how fast will the K-3 be on motorola's Cu process early next year at 0.18 micron. It will be an interesting horse race and I fully expect Q3 99 AMD/MOT will have the lead.

Regards,

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