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: Charles R who wrote (89072)	1/23/2000 1:45:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572560

Charles - <<I "changed my mind" about AMD vs. Cu several months ago, becoming agnostic.> Interesting! How did that happen?> I actually posted this several months ago on one thread or another. I believe it was to kash, specifically regarding Copper contamination issues. At the time, I believe my post went something like, "I've studied up on the issues, and I'm no longer as concerned as I was." I still have reservations about the maturity of the tool sets, but over time this will ultimately be resolved one way or another, just a matter of how painful this is going to be, or not. Kind of like speculating on Y2K. As far as I know, no one is yet shipping a high volume Cu logic process, although IBM and MOT are probably starting to achieve something close to what the industry would consider high volume. <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).> Intel's number, for it's methodologies, did not approach this. There is speculation that with tighter DR's, maybe the benefit increases. Thus, AMD may well receive more benefit than Intel. This is just a WAG, and not totally mine. PB