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 (89054)	1/23/2000 1:31:00 AM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572551

PB, <May make sense for AMD. Would not have made sense for Intel to convert to Cu on .18 for both cost and (lack of) performance benefit.> This I kind of agree with. Putting in Cu capacity in the sclae that Intel needs would be one humongous capex. AMD is adding a new fab and is working on a incremental basis - doesn't have the burden of supplying 80%+ volume of microprocessors. But, I don't buy the (lack of) performance benefit part. Some fairly reliable folks have suggested over time that moving to Cu at the current generation would give ~10% gain. (some more, some less to be sure but the 10% is a good consensus number). <I "changed my mind" about AMD vs. Cu several months ago, becoming agnostic.> Interesting! How did that happen? Chuck