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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (34048)	3/28/2001 11:50:33 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Watson, I'll give you a clue. I'm not talking about theory. Scumbria

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (34048)	3/29/2001 12:03:21 AM
From: Pravin Kamdar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Watson, I would suggest that it is interconnect impedance limited. Pravin.

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (34048)	3/29/2001 12:29:57 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

WATSONYOUTH, I think it is safe to say that Scumbria knows details of preliminary results from either Intel's or AMD's 0.13 process. (EDIT - or someone else's.) I suspect that at 0.13u, noise is a big problem especially since the voltage swings are getting very small. But that is just a guess off the top of my head. Certainly the transistors themselves should be faster, but there may be other "system" issues that spoil the party. Someone else made the point that AMD stands to gain more because their devices are power limited and smaller geometries with lower voltages should definitely lower power. Scumbria has been mocking Intel a lot lately, to the point where I thought he was being hyper-AMDroid, but maybe he knows something we don't. Petz