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: kash johal who wrote (71318)	9/7/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574197

kash - <Seems to me you are posting a bunch of FUD here, i am sure elmer is impressed.The implication seems to be that because the G4 only runs at 450Mhz at 0.18/Cu that somehow implies problems for Athlon. As you are well aware the architecture playa a big role as well. For instance the HP81500(???) runs at lower Mhz than PIII but has much higher performamce. However a more interesting metric would be to see where the PPC was at 0.25 and compare with the new 0.18 devices. The G4's are running approx 50% faster than their 0.25 bretheren. So you might figure out that for the Athlon architecture 1 Ghz should be quite reasonable with the 0.18/cu process as they achieve 650Mhz with 0.25 micron. But I expect you will post more FUD now.> Isn't it FUD ot come on without ANY supporting argument and say K7 can go to 1GHz with the snap of a finger? I challenge this. Yes the architecture does play a role, but so does process, like it or not. As for THEWATSONYOUTH's argument, I have had received confirmation that indeed it does appear that the MOT process is a hybrid .18 FEOL and .25ish BEOL. Furthermore, it appears that AMD is probably doing the same thing with their current K7 and K6-III process. This explains the 1.6 volts (what other .25 process runs at 1.6V?) I am trying to make arguments based upon what is known, and can be physically analyzed. I.e., known MHz's various process, amongst other contacts I have that analyze competitive conditions relative to the process world. People do do that sort of thing, you know, cut open a chip to see what's there. I am staking my word on the infor I've seen, and will wait for independent confirmation from a public source. Until then, I guess you can call me what you want. It'll build character anyway. So far though, I stand on my record of what I've posted. I believe you will be hard pressed to find where I've posted something that turned out to be a blatant falsehood relative to my area of expertise. Is suppose since it regards AMD and the K7, Jim can just come on and blatantly say K7 at 1GHz at the snap of a finger, when its currently released at 650. If AMD goes from 700 to 1000 on .25 in one jump, it'll be a historic event. I'm basing this on my experience. If it scales to .25 over time, I am not worried, based on what I have learned about AMD's current process. So until I see a timeline, I will be very skeptical of such statements without supporting argument, besides "it's the architecture". MAybe AMD will finally put an MHz roadmap on its website???? Intel some time ago cooled a .25 uM PII and demo'd it at 1GHz. I guess I could make the same argument, going on what's known. PB