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: Process Boy who wrote (71646)	9/10/1999 11:59:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575426

PB, <<P.S.: I took a quick look and see that it is only 0.18. Do you have the SRAM max speeds or schmoos for 0.25 or 0.35?> Charles, I'll have to dig those up. I'll see what I can do. One thing. This study was done close to a year ago. The current speed of this device may have improved at the parameters specified. Now I see what you are trying to do, I think; equate SRAM test vehicle speed with Fmax on product? ?This may be tough. I don't know if I can specify things to that detail. however, the speeds certainly are an indication of the health of the process.> One would think that speed path issues on the product would be the only thing limiting comparable Fmax on Product, assuming the architecture can support high MHz.> I would be very interested in experts comments on this issue. Have the gate counts between pipeline stages fallen down to a level where CPU can now outrun SRAMs on FMAX? I always thought SRAMs run significantly faster than CPUs on a given process I thought my emails were pretty clear on what I was looking for. I was wondering why the CPU/process folks like you are letting the remark about equating process and SRAM speed grades going unchallenged. Chuck