SI
SI
discoversearch

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: tejek who wrote (126430)10/18/2000 1:52:06 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Respond to of 1580018
 
Ted, I'm sure you're right that Intel got a big subsidy to locate in Gaza. Which traces back to U.S. taxpayers, in the fungible money sense anyway.

As for why, I think the P4 inherited the Timna line, which in turn may have been all that Intel had available for super-size chips. I assume that the 1 or 2 steppers in the world story makes some sense in terms of handling really big chips, vs. Intel's normal production, but I don't know. By the time it got to production setup, Timna probably wasn't considered important enough to worry about.

Cheers, Dan.



To: tejek who wrote (126430)10/18/2000 1:57:37 PM
From: Dan3  Respond to of 1580018
 
Re: why would Intel would place production of the P4 in that fab?

Wasn't it originally intended for commodity flash? That would have been much less of an issue if it were disrupted. It was their next FAB coming on line so they switched it to CPUs at the last minute due to competitive pressure from you know who.

Dan