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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (89654)	10/7/1999 2:03:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 186894

WATSONYOTH - <Somebody showed me one of those (I think) "Dixon" CPUs in cross section. It appeared to be just a short .25um device plugged into .18um groundrules. I suspect they use the same channel length device that goes into a 600MHz PIII (physical poly would be small enough to fit into .18um groundrules) and then run it at say 1.5V vs 2.05V for PIII. Thus, big power reduction and maybe 33% performance hit down to 400MHz. So,if this is true, Dixon performance makes sense.> Some of the reasons you cited account for the "low" MHz of that part. There are other design related issues concerning the "dumb shrink", that didn't optimize well when translated to .18, and no resources were devoted to rectifying the issues . This was a business decision, as Coppermine was coming down the pipe anyway. E.g., Coppermine layout was optimized for .18, Dixon .18 was not. The .18 Dixon was meant to test drive Intel's .18 process in its lead fab as primarily a logic test vehicle. It did that. Also, we actually sold quite a lot of them, and the yields were outstanding, which is what we wanted to verify. :-). PB