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: gzubeck who wrote (244005)	12/6/2007 1:17:11 AM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Let me know when Intel decides to spend $20 billion upgrading 5 fabs to 32-22nm process with little to no improvement What makes you assume that Intel will have little or no improvement at 32nm and 22nm? Re: maybe you can add transistors... More transistors, lower power, and higher performance. That's why semiconductor companies shrink their chips. So far Intel is getting great results out of 45nm with High-K and Metal Gates, and I'm guessing at 32nm or 22nm we'll see tri-gate transistors, or something similar that allows even further reductions and benefits. Re: best to spend the r&d in other ways and milk the hell out of the 45nm process... That's not how Intel's business works. They jump to the next process every 2 years, like clockwork. Tick-Tock.

To: gzubeck who wrote (244005)	12/6/2007 1:18:11 AM
From: seti	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Let me know Let me know when AMD makes more profit than Intel.

To: gzubeck who wrote (244005)	12/6/2007 1:58:20 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Let me know when Intel decides to spend $20 billion upgrading 5 fabs to 32-22nm process with little to no improvement...maybe you can add transistors...thats my guess...maybe Intel will have two fabs converted to that node....then something else will have to be used...best to spend the r&d in other ways and milk the hell out of the 45nm process... So what you're saying is now that AMD appears hopelessly behind in process technology, now's the time to play the "luddite" card and claim that no one should ever need more than 640K of RAM?