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: MikeyB who wrote (42542)	12/1/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) of 1573512

<is it because LI is a patented/proprietary technology and Intel isn't willing to pay for a license? Or does Intel just not see a need to implement LI since its current process is obviously successful?> I've been told that local interconnect (LI) isn't necessarily better or worse, just different. Why AMD pursued the LI route while Intel declined is beyond me. One reason could be that Intel is just so huge that implementing aggressive techniques like LI may be too risky, and the returns may not have justified the risk. Recall the production problems AMD had a year ago. I'm not saying that AMD's choice to pursue LI was solely responsible for their production problems, but I do bring this up as an example of what could have happened to Intel had they gone with a more aggressive philosophy. This could also be a reason why Intel isn't pursuing the copper technology publicized by IBM for their 0.18 micron process. Intel thinks the benefits of copper in the 0.18 micron process aren't good enough to justify the risks. We'll see sooner or later whether Intel made the right choice or not. Tenchusatsu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next