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: dale_laroy who wrote (133953)	5/1/2001 11:32:18 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dale: assuming that UMC's 0.13-micron process technology were equivalent to AMD's 0.18-micron process technology I think it's better (UMC's .13µ) - certainly if you're comparing to the Fab25 AMD process. However, feature size isn't the problem - it's the whole process. Foundries need to optimize their whole process and manufacturing procedures towards the single goal of achieving great yields on any die customers may through at them. Operating frequencies are very much secondary. On the other hand, AMD would probably have a significantly easier time at using a foundry than would Intel. The reason being, of course, the cell-based design of AMD chips. IMHO, if UMC were to fab any K7 processors, the best bet would probably be mobile chips. The operating frequency demands aren't as harsh and UMC's process is probably better at attaining low power consumption. All that said, would you happen to know when UMC / TSMC plan on .13µ production? I seem to recall that they delayed it, introducing an intermediate .15µ step… -fyo