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 (92400)	2/10/2000 11:11:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1572881

Thanks, TWY, for your comments. <eom>

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (92400)	2/11/2000 11:39:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1572881

TWY - <While the AMD device design (from the Dec IEDM paper) is inferior to Intel's, they have relatively more room for improvement and probably have made some in the 7 months since that paper was written. I think the "game playing" might have only just begun.(on both sides) just speculating,> Interesting. Nice post. PB

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (92400)	2/11/2000 11:56:00 AM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572881

TWY, <I got a "good one" I'd like to share with EVERYONE. Apparently, Intel (during the 1GHz Coppermine talk at ISSCC) said the process is now good to 1.7V if they tighten up the Vcc specs. I think we MIGHT see an increase to 1.7V at the release of the next stepping. This probably gets them a quick 933MHz release. Now, AMD is already at 1.7V but may still be at 23A gate oxide (based on their Dec IEDM paper) vs. 20A for Intel. So, maybe AMD also responds by thinning to 20A and remaining at 1.7V. While the AMD device design (from the Dec IEDM paper) is inferior to Intel's, they have relatively more room for improvement and probably have made some in the 7 months since that paper was written. I think the "game playing" might have only just begun.(on both sides)> Good one! If you noticed Intel talked about 1G at ISSCC and AMD demonstrated 1.1G. All indications, rumors as well as published information, put AMD well ahead of Intel on the MHz angle. Chuck

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (92400)	2/12/2000 12:53:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572881

THE WATSONYOUTH, <Intel .. said the process is now good to 1.7V> If Intel is good for 1.7V at 20A oxide, is not it reasonable to assume that AMD may be good up to 1.95V since their oxide is 23A thick? What do you think? Also, what is so evasive in my logic about Elmer? Is it your suggestion to leave his obnoxious drivel alone, or what? I believe not everyone who reads SI is so sophisticated as you are, and is capable to discern his lies from the reality. And again, if you find anything evasive in my posts, please do request clarification, publicly or by PM. I would be glad to provide clarifications to my poor English expressionisms. Regards, - Ali