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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (90761)	1/31/2000 9:40:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1574472

TWY - <The DETAILS do seem to elude you.> Come on. You know as well as I that I CANNOT get into the level of detail someone like you would like on a public thread. Get real. <Thanks - I would enjoy yours a lot more if you shot from the hip a bit more often. You lose a toe now and then, but it makes life a lot more entertaining.> I'm not here to entertain you. You are free to ask then why I am here. I don't care. Whom shall I tell Chuckie sent their regards? TWY? PB

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (90761)	1/31/2000 10:02:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1574472

TWY - <800MHz estimation was based on 1.5V and device designs of Dec 98 IEDM paper. 933MHz estimation was based on actual 1.65V release and 10% improved device design (notch process) of Dec 99 IEDM paper. I still questioned 1GHz but agreed based on some physical analysis I saw on a 733MHz part. This seems very consistent to me and maybe rates more than just a prognostication. I must agree with Kap on at least one point. The DETAILS do seem to elude you.> TWY, if you haven't guessed by now in all your years observing Intel, it typically does not make a habit of divulging every lucid detail of its process development efforts. You might consider that Intel's business model does not incorporate significant foundry business, and the competitive reasons for operating this way should be obvious. I know you know about competitive analysis. I guess that's my point to you, insoumuch in your seemingly total reliance on published data, when in fact Barrett demonstrated the thing at 1GHz chilled. I asked you once to "think out of the box", or something like that. I don't see you doing that. If you continue to rely on what Intel publishes, you will continue to under estimate the situation. Anyway, the main reason I am posting is that we may have a misunderstanding. I asked you once to please enable you PM capability , but you evidently refused. Put yourself in my place, and the timing involved, and who was involved, to see an aliased person on a very public forum, shoot off the message you did. That was very inappropriate, IMHO. All you had to do was ask. PB