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: Saturn V who wrote (139651)	7/19/2001 1:52:22 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, we have to give credit where its due. IBM has indeed been a great innovator and leader in silicon process technology. I agree credit is due but the point I am making is about IBM's (in?)ability to manufacture in high volume, not develop. AMD is not in need of simply new technology, they have to be able to put that into high volume manufacturing, and that's exactly why Intel snubbed SOI. IBM does great research and development but publishing papers is not the same thing as ultra high volume manufacturing at a cost competitive price. We don't have any reason to believe IBM and their process inovations are competitive here and AMD can't stay in the game on fancy process alone. I know as a fact that Intel has had a SOI process for some time and they have chosen not to use it. Their process development people didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They don't use it for a reason. The reason appears to me to be that their P4 design is extremely scaleable and their .13u process is working well enough that they aren't in the desperate position AMD is. AMD is already at .13u with their transistors and they are 100s of MHz behind Intel's .18u process. Intel will be shipping 2GHz P4s on their .18u process this quarter and AMD's equivilant process(really just a shrink because they are already there on their transistors) is far behind. SOI is a desperate grasp for anything that might help keep AMD from falling farther behind at an even faster rate. The old second derivative thing. The AMD fans who hold SOI up as their savior are deluding themselves. It's expensive and doesn't buy much or Intel would already be doing it. EP

To: Saturn V who wrote (139651)	7/19/2001 9:38:13 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: For mainframes.... the chip cost is a tiny fraction of the total system cost. You guys have to try to get together on your story... Mary's going to give you h*ll, and, for somebody who recently excoriated Pete G here, your agreeing with one of his more contested positions is, well, interesting.

To: Saturn V who wrote (139651)	7/19/2001 10:05:21 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Saturn, good summary of IBM and their microelectronics' div. purpose in life. Just one conradiction in your reasonin on this one: However IBM Microelectronics has not leveraged its process innovation with good products. It has mostly built products for its in house mainframe business, where yields do not matter as much. For mainframes performance and reliability means everything, and the chip cost is a tiny fraction of the total system cost. IBM will be the first to tell you that good yields are the first ingredient in the reliability pie. It could be that for small lot requirements they find a way to get the yielding chips super reliable, regardless of yield, don't know. Intel well knows the yield = reliability connection also. Another reason I recommend Intel over any other, because, historically, Intel is the best in reliability. Used to think IBM was 1,2, but maybe not anymore? Tony

To: Saturn V who wrote (139651)	7/19/2001 10:22:26 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

"IBM has indeed been a great innovator and leader in silicon process technology..." You forgot LDD (lightly doped drain) which is used by literally every chip company in the world. You also forgot the technologies developed for refractory metals, salicides and polycides and of course the Dennard cell. E-beam lithography made a huge impact in mask making. Have you ever seen a x-section of a DRAM made by IBM with 5-6 levels of metal and a polysilicon filled trench capacitor 6-8 microns deep and about 0.2 microns wide.?? And I guarantee you those yields are high. I believe IBM was also the first with shallow trench isolation while others were still using local oxidation technology. They also invented and developed Al-Cu metallurgy which became the staple of the industry for many years. Why do you think IBM makes such an effort to be #1 in patents issued each year.? I think this is about 7 years in a row now. How many patents does Intel get issued each year. Any idea how much Intc pays IBM yearly?Intellectual Property revenue is produced without the cost of building a 2.5B dollar fab. And to answer your other concern .....yes, IBM has always been very very yield conscious. But I think most old timers would agree they blew it when they essentially put Intel on the map by choosing to buy their micro instead of using their own. In those days the market was too small for the old Big Blue to be interested in making the chips. Incidentally, I think I just read that IBM's outside chip sales increased 26% this past quarter.