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: Ali Chen who wrote (148925)	11/20/2001 7:38:53 PM
From: Robert Salasidis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

You are quoting two completely separate measurements on the data sheet (but I will admit I did not see the Table 41 measurements previously). Table 41 lists the consumption at 35 deg, Table 9 does not. There is therefore a discrepancy in the power consumption between the two pages, which proves the point I was making, and disproves your point (that there is excess leakage) In Table 9 (100 degC measurements) ULV deeper sleep - 1.27V Regular - 1.7A In Table 41 - 35 deg C measurements ULV deeper sleep 0.47W (at 0.85V) = .553A Regular part 0.62W (0.85V) = 0.73A The diffeecen in current requirements is secondary to a different Tj The numbers also put the sleep current in line (or less per transistor) with the Athlon parts (running on a 0.18 process). Admittedly - the Athlon parts were tested at 50 degrees, so I think on a per transistor basis, there is likely little difference, and therefore nothing to argue about.