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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (136982)	6/8/2001 1:09:55 AM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Well, it is apparent that fingolfen has chosen to punk out of this discussion..... so I will respond to you. To make the conclusions that you, Engel and fingolfen have made based on a physical cross section alone is ludicrous. TWY, I was the only one to say that I had seen cross sections, so don't jump to conclusions about what data the others may have access to. Maybe they have access to more data than I do? I always make it clear that I am not a process expert but I know enough to realize that screwing down the channel lengths is the last gasp effort to squeeze every drop of performance out of a process generation. To be sure Intel has been doing it with their CuMines to enhance binsplits but from what I can gather P4 is not being squeezed in the same manner and it would be a mistake to extrapolate this to predict in any meaningful way P4 frequency potential when moving to .13u. Regarding the inference of AMD's .18u channel lengths in predicting .13u performance, I will defer to your greater expertise, but don't expect me to believe that AMD's wringing every last drop out of .18u transistors has no effect on the expected performance boost when eventually moving to .13u. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I've been through many process generations and channel length is the first order effect. EP