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: fingolfen who wrote (147238)	11/9/2001 12:01:10 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Fin, he acts like he knows more about process technology than guys who have Ph.D's on the subject, and more about computer architecture than guys whose jobs revolve around creating and debugging it. Tenchusatsu

To: fingolfen who wrote (147238)	11/9/2001 12:15:31 PM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Oh great and wise Dan who has never set foot in a fab, please educate us poor Ph.D's. Bottom line is that Intel has 2.0GHz on a 100nm gate, and have demonstrated 3.0 to 3.5 on a nominally 65-70nm gate whereas AMD is stuck at 1.6GHz on a 70nm gate. Your assertion is just plain wrong. If you have some data, present it. Otherwise be an adult, admit your error, and move on with life. HAW HAW HAW...... I almost responded in kind to Dan about that ridiculous "More Than 1 Dimension" statement. Was that a riot OR WHAT???? AS IF Channel Length was just some 1 minor dimension of many. Clearly Dan has no idea of the relationships, or importance of Channel Length vs. Current Leakage vs. Chip Speed....... Oh Man....... "There is more that 1 dimension to a gate", HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... WHEW!!!!! THAT WAS A GOOD ONE. :-) Semi

To: fingolfen who wrote (147238)	11/9/2001 12:54:04 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

"..please educate us poor Ph.D's. Bottom line is that Intel has 2.0GHz on a 100nm gate, and have demonstrated 3.0 to 3.5 on a nominally 65-70nm gate whereas AMD is stuck at 1.6GHz on a 70nm gate." Not a problem to give you some education. As it was "discussed" at length in K6-era with such prominent Ph.Ds like Yousef and Paul, it was established that the working frequency of a microprocessor is a product of gate speed, interconnect delays, _AND_ the pipeline microarchitecture "thingy" (or the amount of layers of combinatorial logic between pipeline stage latches). Shorter pipeline usually have more logic in between, and therefore is usually slower. Therefore it is highly mistaken to derive any conclusions about transistor's technology from the device top operating frequency alone. Just as reminder, basing on this fallacy, Ph.D. Yousef has predicted that the introductory speed of Athlons will not exceed 300Mhz. You know what the reality was. "Otherwise be an adult, admit your error, and move on with life." Being a Ph.D in chemistry does not qualify you to anything. I strongly advise you to study some basics of microprocessors design before resorting to your mockery. - Ali