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: kapkan4u who wrote (49695)	8/2/2001 8:07:35 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Designing Hammers exclusively for SOI, constructing an additional floor at Dresden and stuffing it with oxygen implanters is not a bit deal for you?" We don't have enough details with respect to AMD's process to make guesses at this point. IBM indicates that the "floating body" effect can be used to great advantage if you use it instead of fighting it. It is not clear that Intel, for one, ever figured out how to do that, and that very well may be the IP that AMD paid for. If you examine both TI's and Intel's objections to SOI, they seem to feel that the "floating body" effect is the limit at smaller geometries... But even if the "floating body" effect becomes a limitation below 70nm, AMD still would get full use out of Dresden and at least 3 generations with an advantage, however small, over a bulk process. Look at copper on 0.18 micron, Intel claimed it offered no advantage, but unless AMD is sandbagging, they cannot get their Al process in Austin to clock with their Cu process in Dresden. Yeah, I know, the 90nm or better Leff that Dresden has is the key, but I think it is obvious that Cu allows that Leff where Al doesn't. And if AMD had a 20(sometimes 27, depending on a hit to the trace cache) stage processor like the P4, I suspect they could be turning out 2.5GHz processors right now in Dresden while Intel will need 0.13 micron to do the same. If AMD is implanting their own wafers, then they had better have a solution to the pinhole problem. If they are growing SOI in situ as Hans DeVries suggest, then who knows what can crop up? AMD seems awful confident about SOI, which is sorta scary...

To: kapkan4u who wrote (49695)	8/2/2001 8:30:25 PM
From: bacchus_ii	Respond to of 275872

Kapkan, RE combjelly:<But even if the "floating body" effect becomes a limitation below 70nm, AMD still would get full use out of Dresden and at least 3 generations with an advantage, however small, over a bulk process. > And what about if we are stuck at .10 nm in 3 to 5 years from now because of some practical manufacturing reasons. AMD would have made a $$$$$ bet. Gottfried PS: Of course, this way of thinking is more suitable to LT investors.

To: kapkan4u who wrote (49695)	8/2/2001 8:53:03 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Designing Hammers exclusively for SOI, constructing an additional floor at Dresden and stuffing it with oxygen implanters is not a bit deal for you? Allocating process and device research dollars to SOI and away from bulk for 3 years is not a big deal? Since when were cores "designed exclusively for SOI"? You think that migrating from Thoroughbred to Barton is a complete core redesign? Who knows what the additional floor in Dresden is used for? Oxygen implanters was one rumor, and may be correct, but I can't see that they needed that much space for them. As for "wasting" R&D money, well R&D is always speculative. Look, I didn't say that the failure of SOI would not be a hit for AMD. The point I am making is that it would be a setback not a disaster and AMD would handle it. I get pissed off with the vicious euphoria/gloom swings on this thread at the slightest hint of something going well or badly. Happy investing then. Whatever the sentiment in those words, then the same to you.