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 (147131)	11/8/2001 7:35:55 AM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

By using the notched gate process to etch gate sizes down to what would normally be the next major node (so they get .13 gates from their .18 process) Intel managed to keep from sliding too far behind Athlon in performance, but the resulting processors are fairly fragile, and they've also been "eating their future" by using up much of the benefit that otherwise would be gained when moving to a copper .13 from an aluminum .18 process. ---SIGH... As I have already explained to you Dan, the Notched Poly Process DOES NOT USE 0.13u GATES. The 0.18u Process used 100nm Gates, which is much larger than the 70nm gates that intel claims for 0.13u, so your claim is false: content.techweb.com "The "notched-poly" process refinement described by Tahir Ghani, senior engineer with Intel's logic technology development group in Portland, Ore., has already been included in Intel's 0.18-micron CMOS process and in circuits manufactured with transistor gate lengths of 0.1 micron (100 nanometers)." PS - PIII went from 1.1GHZ on aluminum .18 to 1.26GHZ on copper .13 for a gain of only 15% ---Once again, your distortion of reality, would be comical, if it wasn't so sad. Intel's Tualatin has received rave reviews from just about every website around, almost to the point of "Mike" and company calling them idiots for discontinuing it. It's performance in applications far exceeds Coppermine..... And isn't that what you "AMDreamers" keep saying is most important about K7??? :-) Semi

To: Dan3 who wrote (147131)	11/8/2001 10:47:05 AM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Oh Dan, there you go again... By using the notched gate process to etch gate sizes down to what would normally be the next major node (so they get .13 gates from their .18 process) Intel managed to keep from sliding too far behind Athlon in performance, but the resulting processors are fairly fragile, and they've also been "eating their future" by using up much of the benefit that otherwise would be gained when moving to a copper .13 from an aluminum .18 process. Actually the "notched process" gave channel lengths of something around 100nm which was the industry standard for 0.18 micron. The industry standard for 0.13 micron is 65-70nm. At the newly renames 90nm node (formerly 0.10 or 0.09 micron), the standard will be 45nm, at 65nm it will be 32nm, at 45nm it will be 22nm, and at 32nm (in 2009) it will be 16nm. Intel has demonstrated transistors down to 20nm. PS - PIII went from 1.1GHZ on aluminum .18 to 1.26GHZ on copper .13 for a gain of only 15%! Ummmm... 0.13 micron is just ramping, and 1.1GHz on 0.18 micron is relatively recent. It certainly wasn't released in 1999. Tom overclocked the first Tualatins to 1.5GHz, and Intel has demonstrated 3.0 and 3.5GHz P4's on 0.13 micron (it topped at 2.0GHz on 0.18 micron in case you lost count). Looks like the 0.13 micron process is perfectly healthy to me. You seem incredibly ignorant of basic process technology as well as technology cycles, and quite desperate to prove some point which is not backed up by fact. If AMD hadn't blown their wad on channel lengths, they wouldn't have to be spending their way out of a performance deficit (SOI). Unless AMD can start inching its ASP's up dramatically, the combination of Intel at 300mm and AMD on SOI will bankrupt AMD.