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: ptanner who wrote (111741)	5/21/2000 6:11:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572066

Re: If 0.35 works for chipsets, why use rarer and more expensive new processes and lose the time for the transition. Some have speculated that at some point smaller feature sizes will be necessary to support sufficient speeds (the chipset does have to talk to the CPU, memory, and video chip at increasingly higher speeds). Another issue in favor of older technology (larger size) chipset parts is that sometimes a larger die is needed for chipsets to accommodate all the pinout pads (this is Intel's big argument in favor of Rambus, though Bilow has pretty much shown that to be specious due to BGA capability for many pads in a very small area). So far, though, I don't think that your statement is really being contested by anyone (including me). Regards, Dan