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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (108363)	8/25/2000 4:50:18 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 186894

Elmer, When one considers that Itanium is on a .25u process, it's a pretty high frequency for any chip to hit. Good point. Given the large die size, the chances of making 800MHz seem pretty close to zero. Scumbria

To: Elmer who wrote (108363)	8/25/2000 4:53:51 PM
From: EricRR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

When one considers that Itanium is on a .25u process, it's a pretty high frequency for any chip to hit. I agree, if you're sure its true. I asked SemiConEng that question and he demured. Why would Intel ruin their launch of this product by using obsolete Fabs? Do 0.18 Celerons and Timna's really deserve priority? I find it hard to believe that Intel made a business decision to keep Itanium on 0.25, unless they decided the design was a loser, and process tech couldn't help.

To: Elmer who wrote (108363)	8/25/2000 4:56:55 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, >When one considers that Itanium is on a .25u process, it's a pretty high frequency for any chip to hit. Do you know what the plan is for 0.18? I thought most of the problem was that, when a lot of the architecture was being done many moons ago, clock speeds were not envisioned as high as they've become. OTOH, it must have a helluva lot of (term for the week) IPCs! Tony