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: Joey Smith who wrote (149261)	11/23/2001 11:14:13 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Joey and Intel Investors - Looks like Intel's 0.13 micron process uses 248 nM lithography - and the AMDroid blokes that claimed the 193 nM stepper delays would delay their process ramp were WRONG - AGAIN ! Here's the abstract for Intel's IEDM presentation next month describing their 200 MM and 300 MM processes for 0.13 micron Copper processes. his.com 11:10 a.m. 11.6 An Enhanced 130nm Generation Logic Technology Featuring 60nm Transistors Optimized for High Performance and Low Power at 0.7 - 1.4V, S. Thompson, M. Alavi, R. Bigwood, T. Bramblett, J. Brandenburg, B. Crew, M. Hussein, P. Jacob, C. Kenyon, C. Lo, B. Mcintyre, Z. Ma, P. Moon, P. Nguyen, L. Rumaner, R. Schweinfurth, S. Sivakumar, M. Stettler, B. Tufts, S. Tyagi, J. Xu, S. Yang and M. Bohr, Intel Corporation A leading edge 130nm technology with 6 layers of Cu interconnects and 1.3V operation has previously been presented[1]. In this work we enhanced the previous technology by further transistor improve-ments to support a 60nm gate dimension, 6-T SRAM device matching to allow low power and high performance operation at 0.7 to 1.4V, and a 5% linear shrink to reduce the 6-T SRAM cell to 2.00mm2 while still using 248nm lithography. Saturation drive currents of 1.29mA/mm for N-ch and 0.65mA/mm for P-ch low VT device are the highest reported to date. These results have been achieved on both 200 and 300mm wafers.

To: Joey Smith who wrote (149261)	11/24/2001 9:34:37 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 186894

Joey, At this point in time, there is no need for SUN to "acknowledge" the Itanium. Why? Because SUN is, pretty much, the leader in this space. Worst case scenario for SUN is that eventually, they scrap their own processor and architecture and move to an Intel variant. Intel will gladly sell to SUN. Best case for SUN, the Itanium and future variants, flop hence no need to commoditize their SPARCs ensuring high margins. Intel, most likely, will be able to provider a "lower" cost for users who want an Itanium. What I am interested in seeing is benchmarks comparing comparable Sparcs to Itanium systems.