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 (135427)	5/18/2001 2:05:33 PM
From: fingolfen	Respond to of 186894

OTOH, the launch in June/July 1999 differs from the launch in June/July 2001 in a much more significant way than relative volumes. The June/July 1999 launch was a true step in process generation using 248nm lithography, while the June/July 2001 launch will be a process shrink. The real generational timeframe will be determined by when Intel starts shipping in volume using 193nm lithography. Okay, now I understand where you're coming from on this one. You're defining "process generation" in terms of lithography generation. I was defining it in terms of transistor speed and performance. If you have a 60-70nm gate length with the expected performance benefit, that's a new process generation in my book regardless of what tools you used to get there. If you can make 248nm steppers work for another generation, you lower your total cost... AMD has historically been very aggressive with process shrinks, sometimes moving ahead of Intel. Their problem this time appears to be that they have discovered that actual 193nm lithography is needed for some of the mask steps, so they can not do a pure process shrink, as had been originally planned. The point is that all bets are off with regards to the move to 100nm. If it is a process shrink, there is potential that AMD will beat Intel to 100nm. It is however, probably a safe bet that Intel will use 157nm lithography first, but probably not in 2003. In terms of transistor performance, Intel has typically led the pack. In terms of adopting new process technologies, Intel doesn't always lead... granted! 157nm is way out there yet... and clearly with the SVGI issue, 193nm isn't robust either. Also, you have to remember that the actual 193nm tool is only half of the equation, you also need robust photoresist to make the process work, and NOBODY seems to be commenting publicly on 193nm or 157nm resist (at least that I've seen... if you've seen something, I'd love to read it!). Intel and AMD have completely different economies of scale. Intel is frequently forced to make existing technology stretch to the next process generation because they have so many fabs which need to be identically equipped. In the case of 193nm on 0.13 micron, this is most likely the case... at least for 200mm. I think a more important question is what will Intel be using on 300mm? Will it start up with 248? PSM? 193??? I haven't seen any good data at this point.