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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: milo_morai who wrote (80078)	5/15/2002 12:15:19 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Milo, Here is something from Q1 CC: Our investment plans include the completion of our 0.13nm capacities at FAB30. We will convert all microprocessor production over to 130nm technology before the end of the year. In addition, we will convert FAB25 to flash, 130nm capacity. jc-news.com Joe

To: milo_morai who wrote (80078)	5/15/2002 4:48:16 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Milo, <font color=red>Re: MirrorBit vs StrataFlash Congratulations, Milo. Your "friend" at TMF basically compared AMD's MirrorBit press release with an article about Intel's StrataFlash that's 4.5 years old! I went ahead and looked up some of the specs of Intel's newest StrataFlash devices and AMD's Mirror-bit devices here. developer.intel.com developer.intel.com amd.com Here's your old table: Price: MirrorBit Flash sells at $7.95, Intel's StrataFlash at $16. AMD has price advantage. A. Access time: MirrorBit 90ns, StrataFlash N/A. P. Access time: MirrorBit 25ns, StrataFlash N/A. Write speed: MirrorBit 47ns/Byte(16 word/6us), StrataFlash 6000ns/Byte (6us/Byte). Erase time: MirrorBit 0.64ns/Byte(64KB/100us), 10 times faster than Intel. Voltage: MirrorBit 3.0v on .18u process(1.8v at yearend), StrataFlash 5v, (1.8v in Aug-2002) And here's a new table that's not comparing a future AMD product against a 4.5 year old Intel product (also many corrections, since some ambiguities from press release allowed you to make some significant errors in your comparison): MirrorBit StrataFlash Price per unit of 10,000: $7.95 $10.00 Asynchronous Access time: 90ns 110ns Page Access time: 25ns 25ns Synchronous Access time: not supported 13ns Write Buffer time (us/word): 5.9-210.0 10.0-30.0 Block Erase time (seconds): 0.4-15.0 1.0-4.0 Voltage: 3.0v on .23u 3.0v* on .18u * 1.8V I/O version available now Values for buffered write and block erase operations include a range. The beginning of the range is the "typical" defined value for both Intel and AMD. The end of the range is the "worst-case" value for AMD and "absolute maximum" by Intel. Both the latter measurements are under adverse temperatures and at the end of the cycle life (100,000 cycles for both technologies). To me, it looks like AMD has better typical timings for their flash devices, but if you are really comparing apples to apples, Intel has the better technology, since their performance doesn't degrade nearly as bad as AMD's when optimum conditions aren't met. Also, StrataFlash seems to read much faster in synchronous mode, which is not available in MirrorBit. wbmw