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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yousef who wrote (26279)	11/30/1997 9:43:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572436

Yousef, many people try to equate die size with device cost. This works well for a given process, but it seems to break down when comparing 2 different processes, such as Intel's and AMD's. As you pointed out, local interconnects allow for greater density but are harder to yield. It would seem that total good die per unit of time is the best gadge. I think Intel took this route. Slightly lower density, faster throughput and greater yields. Therefore a larger die may very well cost less. On another subject, regarding Intel's .25u process. As you know, Intel is shipping 233mhz "tillamok" processors running at I believe 1.9v. What is the upper range for vcc before damage could be expected to gate oxides? Is this the limiting factor to raising vcc? If Intel decided to market a desktop version of the Pentium on this process, what do you think the frequency range would be? EP