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: Ali Chen who wrote (69225)	8/19/1999 10:28:00 AM
From: grok	Respond to of 1584624

RE: <Please pay attention to the remark in column 4: "Die size (pad limited)". I think this is the key to large die sizes, and to the smaller size for RDRAM due to smaller pin count.> Yes, exactly right. Another tip off is that the two 492 pin chips have exactly the same die size. Note however that the 656 pin chip is smaller than the 553 pin chip. It is on denser technology (0.25u vs 0.35u) and may have tighter bonding rules too. What chip sets need is "area bumps" with C4 packaging to get out of these pad limitations. Someone, I think Cirruslvr said that the chips must be almost finished because they have die sizes. But no such inference should be made since they only need to know the number of pins and the bonding rules to know the die size. This suggests that on the DDR, 2P, 4X AGP they don't even know the pin count yet.