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: Tony Viola who wrote (49587)	8/1/2001 1:09:49 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tony I recall hearing similar argument from Intel but intel did not provide any numbers with their justification. What is the relative gain of the copper on .18 vs .13? In case of SOI the claimed gain seems to be very impressive yet Intel thinks it is not sufficient. More than that Intel went through a lot of trouble trying to convince everyone that is not sufficient. It is almost like intel is trying to save money for amd, sounds strange. Regards -Albert

To: Tony Viola who wrote (49587)	8/1/2001 1:32:28 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 275872

>Traces on chips made on 0.18 were still sufficiently wide that the resistivity difference between copper and aluminum made little difference in signal speed or power consumption.< Not exactly. Intel's claim was that by focusing on aluminum they could get aluminum to the point where there was little difference in signal speed or power consumption versus a less mature copper process. If they had divided their efforts between aluminum and copper they would not have been able to push aluminum as far as they did. Additionally, with maturity copper would offer significant advantages over aluminum, even at 0.18-micron. But, Intel anticipated copper process technology would not be mature enough to offer significant benefits until 0.13-microns.