SI
SI
discoversearch

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: wanna_bmw who wrote (141959)8/19/2001 1:34:56 PM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Apparently Dan has still not figured out that I have him on ignore...

Copper interconnects have not been necessary for Intel's .18u manufacturing process to reach high frequencies.

You got it! Intel never said Copper was of no benefit. They said they didn't need it at .18u and the P4 performance confirms that.

- AMD's bulk .13u process will probably not give their chips the same boost in performance as Intel's .13u process will give them, due to AMD already having .13u features on their current process.

Speculation mode ON by non process expert

As has been reported by several people on this thread, what appears to be going on is this: AMD has gone extremely aggressive on their channel lengths in a desperate attempt to keep from falling behind at a faster and faster rate. They have achieved channel lengths smaller than Intel's .18u process and they have probably done so by using phase shifting masks/lithography techniques. Intel has not used this technique on .18u but may use it on .13u due to the delays in delivery of new equipment. This is why people are saying AMD has already spent their .13u benefits.

Speculation mode OFF

Now a question for our experts - If my speculation is plausible, why not use phase shifting on .13u once the new equipment arrives? There must be some downside or Intel would have done it on .18u. Yield problems? Subthreshold currents too high? What's up with that?

Yousef - Paul - TWY?

EP



To: wanna_bmw who wrote (141959)8/19/2001 2:54:59 PM
From: Dan3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Re: Copper interconnects have not been necessary for Intel's .18u manufacturing process to reach high frequencies.

No? Well then, let's take a peek at what was necessary:

Intel's 0.18-micron process technology normally produces transistors with a 0.13-micron gate length, but in his presentation Ghani said a method had been devised that allowed a notch to be introduced at the bottom of each transistor's polysilicon gate, thereby narrowing the gate length to 100 nm.
eet.com

Although a few tricks remain at 0.13 micron to counteract some of these problems, at 0.10 micron and below they become unmanageable. Intel, for example, in a paper presented at last December's IEDM, described a notched-poly technique that undercuts the gate poly to reduce overlap capacitance. IBM says it shies away from such stopgap solutions, however, because they do not scale well to shorter channel lengths. IBM says that even at 0.18 micron, notched poly is more trouble than it's worth. The problem is that ultraprecise control over the etch is required to achieve consistent gate lengths, but such precise control is difficult because of factors such as the proximity of other structures, which create unavoidable local variations in the effectiveness of the etch.
mdronline.com

The second article, in particular, has a nice overview of many of the current controversies.

Remember that AMD didn't suffer a yield crash in late 1999 [note IBM's comments about "not worth it" and "ultraprecise control required"] - while Intel, driven to use a blind etching to go beyond the limits of its .18 lithography process, and clearly lacking the necessary "ultraprecise control" did suffer such a yield crash.

Somebody already used up a good part of the benefit of moving to .13 while still on .18, but maybe you should read up a little more on "notched gates" before you decide which of the two main Windows compatible processors that description is best applied to.



To: wanna_bmw who wrote (141959)8/19/2001 8:54:17 PM
From: Charles Gryba  Respond to of 186894
 
wanna_bmw, as we can see from successfull overclocks of the tbird, the only limitation on that core is power consumption and heat. Here's a link to that

anandtech.com

The palomino is supposedly arriving in september at 1.53 Ghz according to pricewatch.
Make what you will from this info.

Constantine