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: burn2learn who wrote (57413)	10/6/2001 9:52:38 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

"One more item, (again I'm just trying to understand) why is AMD behind on .13 development if .18 micron litho equipment can be used." From the information that has been released, Intel is producing it's 0.13 micron chips with hard phase shift masks. The problem with this technique is that the costs of the masks are significantly higher, and the scanners need to be calibrated with test wafers a whole lot more often(maybe as often as each run). As a result, the throughput is a lot lower. There are also some claims that the yield is a lot lower, but I've seen a lot of argument over that particular point. AMD decided to upgrade the lenses on their scanners to get to 0.13 micron. My suspicions on why AMD did not move quicker to 0.13 micron is that they experimented with it and found that a straight optical shrink (yeah, I know it is more complicated than that) did not yield chips that didn't clock any higher, or even not as high, as the ones on their more optimized current process.

To: burn2learn who wrote (57413)	10/6/2001 11:25:57 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: It's been suggested in the past that AMD yields were lower than Intel and that they were pushing .18 more than Intel. Well, here's my 2 cents, for whatever it's worth. This kind of information is guarded closely by both companies, but the notion that AMD has been "pushing" its process doesn't make any sense. I conclude that based upon the reports of overclocking sites that Athlons of the same production period, whether rated at 1GHZ, 1.4GHZ, or something in between, all overclock to 1.6 to 1.65GHZ with a good fan and a suitable motherboard. Athlons are very consistent. If AMD's process were being "pushed", I would expect more variation in the tested performance of chips as the "push" sometimes succeeded and sometimes didn't quite make it. The nearly flat (and low) pricing of Athlons across its speed range also makes it hard to believe that AMD is having either yield or binsplit problems of any kind. Intel's pricing, on the other hand, could indicate a wide variation in the actual performance of its chips. And that would be expected from a process "pushed" beyond its safe margins. I think it's more likely that they are doing this for marketing reasons rather than because of process problems except that they've had several production stops and even recalls of chips recently in the PIII line. Which is what would be expected from a process "pushed" to the edge of its tested margins. The P4 line hasn't had such recalls and production stops, but the P4 has aggressive clock throttling (clearly demonstrated by Tom's Hardware), which could hide problems in a marginal chip. At the current price/performance of P4, nobody knowledgeable about performance and interested in performance has been buying the chip, so there are very few 3rd party field reports of how it does under overclocking conditions. As the price of P4 comes down, we may see more field reports of how this chip does when it's stressed, and that may give an indication of whether or not Intel has been "pushing" its process.