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: Charles Gryba who wrote (148057)11/14/2001 11:38:34 AM
From: Elmer  Respond to of 186894
 
Elmer, you guys are masters of digressing. The original conversation was about the need for copper and the aluminum 2Ghz .18 P4 was brought up as evidence for not needing copper in .18. I brought up the 1Ghz Aluminum P3 to illustrate the limitations of Aluminum. If you want to argue about apples and oranges, go ahead.

Well the real argument is the level of performance available from a given process. If you accept that P4 and Athlon are now equals you must realize that Intel gets the same overall performance on .18u aluminum that AMD does from copper and .13u transistors.

EP



To: Charles Gryba who wrote (148057)11/14/2001 11:40:07 AM
From: fingolfen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Elmer, you guys are masters of digressing. The original conversation was about the need for copper and the aluminum 2Ghz .18 P4 was brought up as evidence for not needing copper in .18. I brought up the 1Ghz Aluminum P3 to illustrate the limitations of Aluminum. If you want to argue about apples and oranges, go ahead.

Constantine,
You're missing the point. Your thesis is that copper bought speed for AMD. Based on my knowledge of microprocessor fabrication, I think that's just plain wrong. Copper probably bought AMD no more than 50MHz (if that much!), whereas a more recent core design and very narrow polysilicon gates bought them the rest (with the lion's share coming from the gates).