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: graphicsguru who wrote (243075)	10/31/2007 2:21:18 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

". Are there solid links indicating that it ended up thicker than Intel's and also thicker than originally planned?" There was an article on EETimes. I will try to find the link. Now, as far as originally planned, I dunno. I don't know what the original plans were. If they had to modify their process mid-stream, that would indicate serious problems.

To: graphicsguru who wrote (243075)	10/31/2007 3:45:58 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

" Are there solid links indicating that it ended up thicker than Intel's and also thicker than originally planned?" Found it. Interestingly, the transistor performances of Intel's Woodcrest and AMD's Barcelona appear to match fairly closely, with the Barcelona's gate leakage about half that of the Woodcrest. This is not so surprising as Intel uses a 25 percent thinner gate dielectric. AMD's device shows consistently lower gate dielectric leakage than Intel's, especially on the pFETs. The current drive for both devices is comparable, with the Barcelona coming out marginally higher for the pFET but lower for the nFET devices measured. However, the leakage current (I[subscript] off) for the nFETs was two to five times lower in the Woodcrest, suggesting the need for a bit more optimization of AMD's transistor. eetimes.com