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 : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nancy who wrote (22899)	4/19/2005 10:31:51 PM
From: etchmeister	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95609

Cramer is one of many boneheads created by the internet; I don't think he has clue about implications putting two CPU's into "one processor" - so called dual core. But that doesn't mean that people would stop listening to Cramer; yeas 65 nm is not the norm today; but so was 90nm two or three years ago To: Donald Wennerstrom who wrote (20687) 12/17/2004 3:25:53 AM From: etchmeister Read Replies (1) of 21198 Some follow up from INTEL's MANUFACTURING CALL 1.) toolset extendability 90nm to 65nm : 70% extendability what was it from 130nm to 90nm : no actual %number but similar range since 130nm was already laid out to handle 90 nm question now: if 70% of 130nm could address 90nm how much 130nm tools are able to address 65nm No immersion litho - not even @ 45nm level; mixture of 193 and 248 applying phase/shift (Looks like INTEL is pushing very hard to extend litho - one of largest pieces of the overall Capex pie) Number of copper layers increased by only one (from 7 to 8) - tradeoff between cost and performance; toolsets for 65nm pretty much frozen though in some cases two vendors might be used rather than just one 2.) 65 nm MANUFACTURING D1D in OR small scale by end of year technology is already in process of being transferred to the two MANUFACTURING plants (meaningful output around second half of 2005): Fab 12 (AZ) and fab 24 in Ireland INTEL made "sharp turn into dual core (DC)" Analyst pointed out that 90nm DC Smithfield would be 3 times the size than 90 nm SC Prescott (actually it's more like 2.5). No follow up on this matter and possible implication in regards to capacity because of increasing die size. To me looks like a DC based on 90nm does not appear to be very competitive (don't have comparable data from AMD) because INTEL output should take a hit because larger die results in less dies per wafer. Therefore INTEL must push hard to get 65nm going the sooner the better.