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: Dan3 who wrote (141992)	8/20/2001 2:27:20 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

Dan, I admit that your response was very mature, considering how heated I got in my last post. Your arguments are reasonable, and although I don't agree with all of them, I think they are fairly presented for discussion on a forum such as this. I know it's tempting to throw me in what you like to call the Elmer/Yousef/Engle chorus, but I am my own person. I don't agree with everything they say, either. The reason why I don't take up arms against them probably says something for my own biases, but then again, I invest far more heavily in Intel than I do in AMD. ;-) You and I do have something in common, though, and that is a thirst for more data to prove each of our own points. I appreciate the data that you lend, too, since it gives a more complete piece of the puzzle. However, that doesn't mean I won't disagree with you if I think you are being misleading and only giving half-facts. And I expect no less from you. I deserve to be caught on the same mistakes. As for Watsonyouth, I'd appreciate his process expertise far more if he'd tell me I was incorrect, and then offered an alternative explanation. But his tone was rude, he danced around the topic so long that it became dragged out and frustrating, and his goal seemed to be to wipe my face so full of dirt that he could look back and admire his work. If he's reading this, I hope he knows that I admire the experts, and I'm willing to forget the whole incident. He was right to catch me on a mistake, but hopefully in the future he can be more tactful in pointing it out. wanna_bmw

To: Dan3 who wrote (141992)	8/20/2001 12:33:45 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

I was trying to show that Intel stretched its .18 process - successfully, following some problems - and that the constant chorus of Elmer and Engel harmonizing with Yousef that AMD had "used up" any benefit from moving to .13 (while Intel had not) was missing the point that Intel's own notched gate process extended its own .18 to some point between a "classic" .18 and what their .13 could be expected to achieve. I'm not sure I agree there... the notch was used very early in the process, and most of the leading semi-houses were using a 100nm gate width on 0.18 micron from the outset. Not necessarily, but the Elmer/Yousef/Engel chorus that AMD's implementation was a waste of time - at the same time they claimed AMD's process is already effectively providing .13 performance was rather annoying. Pick one or the other. Either AMD's copper process let it get an extra generation of performance out of .18 or AMD will get a big benefit simply from moving to .13 in about 6 months - you can't have it both ways. I go away for a weekend and Dan starts beating this horse again??? Poor horse! Bottom line: Most of the speed in a process generation comes from transistor improvements (i.e. physically shortening the gate length). If AMD has already moved to a 70-80nm gate width while at the 0.18 micron node, they have already used up most of the "bang" from a 0.13 micron transition. I have seen some press releases where AMD claims a 50nm channel length for their 0.13 micron process, but I seriously doubt that this is the physical polysilicon width. There are a lot of tricks one can use to extend 248-nm lithography down to 70nm, but it gets a LOT harder to go below 70nm without moving to 193nm lithography tools, and as so many of the boo birds here are happy to post with regularity, the 193nm steppers have been delayed... ...that Intel is about to make a huge mistake by not implementing SOI. I think an argument can be made for that conclusion, and I've tried to present that argument. You've tried unsuccessfully, Dan... I haven't seen anything apart from half-baked assumptions from any of the SOI advocates. If you have a better case, please present it. You've seen the balance sheets - argue with their auditors, not with me. I'd say most of the balance sheet losses have been in the stock market, but I'm not an accountant... that they will be bleeding red in their Q3 earnings, that they will continue to bleed red as AMD ramps up their future products... I've made a case for that supposition, feel free to argue that I'm wrong (I may well be). I, for one, think it's wrong. I think AMD has run into a speed wall on the Palomino at this point since they seem unable to release the core at anything faster than 1.2GHz. I hope, for their sake, it was a simple speed-path issue which a second stepping of the core would fix. I do, however, think that any PR campaign is going to kill AMD, as PR is basically the kiss of death in the semiconductor industry. I also don't think the Palomino core is going to scale with the P4. With Northwood due out Q4, I see Intel cranking up speed faster than AMD can even consider cranking up PR... (snippage as there are several bitz to which my words would have no relevance...) There used to be 2 people who really knew processor production on these threads and were willing to clue in the rest of us. Process Boy and The Watson Youth. Process Boy had to stop posting because he received a promotion at Intel and felt it was no longer appropriate for him to post here. TWY is the only one we have left who really knows his stuff and is willing to help the rest of us out regularly. (there are occasional posts from a few others, but they don't regularly support the thread). Dump on me if you need to but please don't try to chase TWY away - we all need him. He's helped me out when I made mistakes before, and when corrected I say thanks and shut up. I'd suggest you do the same. Oh, I don't know about that... I know a couple of things about semiconductor fabrication... maybe not as much as PB, but I'm not a neophyte... ;-)