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: wanna_bmw who wrote (153986)1/6/2002 1:34:46 PM
From: Dan3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Re: I am still convinced that AMD has used smaller transistor gate lengths on their .18u process

And Intel used a thinner oxide. So Intel had .13 oxide thickness while AMD had .13 length.

And the evidence that Intel gate length is any less than AMD's is slim (the only third party comparison confirms both had the same gate length at .18 for 1.2GHZ Athlon and 1.5GHZ P4).

The thinner oxides used by Intel's .18 process are consistent with AMD's 1.75v .18 compared to Intel's 1.54v .18.

When it comes to gains from .13, almost all of Intel's gains will probably come from the transition to copper, which is worth about 25%, as indicated by Athlons from Austin vs. Dresden.



To: wanna_bmw who wrote (153986)1/6/2002 1:37:32 PM
From: Dan3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Re: In Intel's presentation on FD SOI, they showed PD SOI as only reducing gate delay to 0.9x (11% frequency improvement).

Intel was convinced SOI was useless until a few months ago, wait until they've been working with it seriously for 2 years, like AMD.

OTOH, Intel sure was right about RDRAM vs. DDR performance, eh?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News