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: Mani1 who wrote (89036)	1/22/2000 11:26:00 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 1572219

Thanx, Mani I was trying to say I'm pleased that AMD has Copper in progress. A 12month lead is a long time in this Biz. Milo PS See Ya at 2Ghz.

To: Mani1 who wrote (89036)	1/23/2000 12:26:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572219

Mani - <And if you want to believe that Intel ramps the 0.13 CU before AMD, FINE! Unless you provide some links proving your opinion, it is just that, an opinion.> I said it was my opinion. Intel's publicly disclosed plan for implementation of .13 is 1H '01. It is my opinion that Intel will beat AMD to .13 ramp, unless AMD only plans to run .18 in Dresden for 6 months, which is not totally outside the realm of possibility. BTW, I don't see Cu as an issue of ramping to .13 for either company. Next generation lithography will be the issue, and I preceive Intel to be leading the industry in this area. My opinion again. <Simplistic or not, Milo's argument makes sense, no reason to get vulgar. You said many times that manufacturing copper in volume is different than making a few in process development environment, due to CU contamination issues. AMD has experience in that respect and Intel does not.> I CONCEDED THE POINT MANI. I do emphasize, however, that I don't think it's that big of a deal (my opinion again), in the least it's premature to predict Intel will have problems just because it didn't do Cu on .18. That is silly. One could just as easily argue that AMD wil have massive problems on .18 because it didn't do Cu on .25. Do you think that's the case? <It seems to me that you expect your statements to not get challenged because you work in a fab. It does not work like that here PB.> And it seems to me that I am being handicapped with my debates just because I work for Intel. milo made some points. I strongly disagree with some of them. I conceded it was an impasse. Am I not allowed to strongly disagree, opinion or not? PB

To: Mani1 who wrote (89036)	1/23/2000 12:37:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572219

Mani - <Simplistic or not, Milo's argument makes sense, no reason to get vulgar. You said many times that manufacturing copper in volume is different than making a few in process development environment, due to CU contamination issues. AMD has experience in that respect and Intel does not.> And both you and Milo have failed in my mind to present a case as to why Intel not going to Cu at .18 is folly. Many Semi's went this route, and none of them appear to be going out of business. Also, the companies that have went to Copper haven't seemed to go out of business either, suggesting it is possible to implement greenfield Cu processes at some point. Again, FOR INTEL to have implemented Cu on .18 would have been a huge waste of bandwidth, IMHO, as well as Intel techno gurus O's. Intel makes it's process decisions based on data, not what the other guy is doing. BTW, IBM has a huge "lead" (quotes intentional) on AMD, MOT, and INTC on it's SOI process, something like two years. Better get with it huh? PB