Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (65953)	7/18/1999 8:28:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573426

Re: "Some minor circuit modifications and process improvements in the poly gate etching have corrected the original speed problem and Intel will have no problem making 600 and 667 MHx Coppermines - in the not-too-distant future." I dunno -- sounds like a LATE MASK FIX to me! Engel's pulling a Sanders!!! Kevin

To: Paul Engel who wrote (65953)	7/18/1999 8:34:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573426

Dr.E, <Intel will have no problem making 600 and 667 MHz Coppermines - in the not-too-distant future.> Wow! 667! In the not-too-distant future! AMD must be shaken off and scared to death! <Some minor circuit modifications and process improvements in the poly gate etching..> He-he, it looks like Intel is ready to play K6 scenario. It is really funny. Welcome to the MHz rally!

To: Paul Engel who wrote (65953)	7/18/1999 8:39:00 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573426

Paul - Re: <Some minor circuit modifications and process improvements in the poly gate etching have corrected the original speed problem and Intel will have no problem making 600 and 667 MHz Coppermines - in the not-too-distant future.> Can Intel actually perform corrections in a timely manner? AMD has demonstrated that it takes 6 months or more to make corrections.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (65953)	7/18/1999 8:50:00 PM
From: grok	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573426

RE: <The original Coppermine CPU speed problem had nothing directly to do with the on-chip L2 cache.> Is the L2 cache issue a second problem or did CPU News misquote Barrett?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (65953)	7/18/1999 10:17:00 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573426

Re. "Some minor circuit modifications and process improvements in the poly gate etching have corrected the original speed problem and Intel will have no problem making 600 and 667 MHz Coppermines - in the not-too-distant future." Based on Intel's published comparisons between their .25um 1.8V and .18um 1.5v device designs(Ion / Ioff and other performance metrics),I would expect at least a 20% to perhaps 25% improvement in COPPERMINE. So if 600Mhzz is the last speed sort without significant circuit limited yield loss at .25um 1.8v, you might conclude that INTEL will eventually go to perhaps 750Mhz with COPPERMINE. This seems to agree with their roadmap and makes sense to me. Also, 67Mhz probably represents only about 90A in channel length. MAYBE the delay was just a foul up in targeting the correct channel length. Foul ups tend to be easier to fix than REAL problems, THE WATSONYOUTH