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: Joe NYC who wrote (218951)	12/5/2006 11:51:35 AM
From: FJB	Respond to of 275872

That was a tear-down by a third party(Semiconductor Insights), so AMD is not really highlighting it. It happens to be equal to what Intel reported for their 65nm process recently.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (218951)	12/5/2006 3:00:54 PM
From: Rink	Respond to of 275872

Joe, re: I wonder why AMD is highlighting the gate length. I remembere that Hans mentioned that Intel did not scale the critical layer on their 65nm as much as expected. Is AMD differentiating themselves here? Or is it unrelated? I already gave a bit related answer to neolib here: Message 23072894 Intel didn't scale oxide layer at all. It was 1.5nm in their 130nm process, 1.2nm@90nm, and now 1.2nm@65nm. Can't remember what AMD used at 90nm (slight above 1.2nm iirc; top in the industry seemed to be at 1.2nm-ish; sorry for the vague memory). The mention of 1.05nm for their 65nm process is prove they DID scale it to a reasonable extent. Reason might be leakage related. AMD might have a better combination of technology to combat this problem allowing them to scale oxide (can't be scaled much further though). Regards, Rink