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 (150734)	12/2/2001 6:13:23 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "What do you think of Intel's sudden realization that they do need SOI after all?" Dan, we've heard this from you constantly before, and several people have already proved you wrong. If you've paid any attention to Tim May, he's shown that Intel has worked with SOI since the late 1970's. When IBM came out with their solution, Intel claimed it wouldn't do them much good at smaller processes, and it wasn't worth the expense, and they were probably right. IBM's technology requires expensive SOI oxygen implanting or epitaxial wafer layers that yield lower than bulk silicon. There are also several other penalties that you get such as the floating body effect. You seem to think that just because Intel is not using their version of SOI at the 130nm node, but they are using it at the 65nm node (and possibly the 90nm node), that they missed the boat, and now have to integrate it at a later time. You are missing the genius, however. Why implement something that at this day and time takes a lot of expense and a loss of yield if the gains achieved are potentially very small? It's no mystery that SOI will be needed eventually to stop certain parasitic effects at smaller geometries, but if they aren't needed now, there is no point investing to bring in the technology early. AMD, on the other hand, needs to benefit from SOI now, since their process is falling far behind Intel's. Their .13u process enhancements are already showing up on their .18u designs, so they need SOI to give them an advantage at .13u. Intel can put it off, and potentially have a much more inexpensive process. Intel may need to cut costs, too, since their die size is larger than AMD's. Turning to SOI may give them a small advantage, but if it means reducing gross margins, then it isn't worth it. Intel will bring SOI online in future generations, but it will be far more advanced than the ones that others are using. The high-K gate channel materials may be something that all manufacturers are implementing at smaller nodes, but the type of material will have a lot to do with the performance of the transistors. Additionally, Intel's other research with their thin-SOI transistors will help it to be far more effective against junction capacitance and leakage, while removing the floating body effect. They are passing up IBM's SOI fad, and delivering the real thing when it will be needed the most. Re: "Intel is capacity constrained after having spent $15 Billion in the last two years, and has about 18 FABs with about 1/3 of those targeting CPUs." I have already proven you wrong with this, Dan. Intel has many fabs, but only a few of them are producing CPUs on the latest processes. Right now Intel has 1) Fab 20 in Oregon on .13u, 2) Fab D2 in California on .13u, 3) Fab 22 in Arizona on .13u, 4) Fab 14 in Ireland on .18u, 5) Fab 11 in New Mexico on .18u, 6) Fab 12 in Arizona on .18u, and 7) Fab 18 in Israel on .18u. Four of these were Intel's .18u fabs from last year, and two are .13u fabs from earlier this year. The only brand new one is Fab 22, which just opened. Intel is still ramping up their .13u fabs - they are not yet near full capacity. Most of Intel's CPUs are using the Willamette or Coppermine cores on .18u (for Pentium 4 and Celeron), and Intel only has 4 fabs producing these. Once Northwood and more Tualatin based Celeron chips are launched, they will have a far better ability to meet demand, since their .13u fabs will be better ramped. But 4 fabs producing Pentium 4 and Celeron chips is not the same as 6 fabs producing them, like you claimed. Intel is in a transition period between processes. Obviously some supply is going to be tight. wbmw