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: Petz who wrote (69586)	8/23/1999 2:42:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1574097

Petz - <2)Intel's potential gain of 10% in MHz didn't appear to be necessary to stay on top of the heap in 0.18æ;> There are a host of other reasons why Intel is not Cu at .18, primarily concerning the manufacturability of Cu early in the learning curve. I.e., potential yields on Cu for the .18 generation are quite suspect, due to immaturity of the required tool sets. Weighing this with estimated potential performance gains of <10% tipped the scales in favor of Al. A good choice, IMHO. PB

To: Petz who wrote (69586)	8/23/1999 2:57:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574097

Petz, That seems logical. What about the extra crosstalk at closer spacings?, do they cut that with the low (capacitive property) insulating layers?Some kind of porous oxide? Bill