SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Petz who wrote (26774)12/16/1997 12:03:00 AM
From: Time Traveler  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574576
 
Petz,

Petz is shocked about 0.25um MMX being as large as 95 mm^2 vs. 0.25um K6 being 80 mm^2:

Please do not be shocked. The trade-off here is die size vs extra complexity (local interconnects). You tell me as a system engineer what you would rather optimize here! As we have already discovered, this local interconnects stuff has much less merit than bigger die size. Please list pros and cons if you care to discuss this issue further. Thank you.

John.



To: Petz who wrote (26774)12/17/1997 12:40:00 AM
From: Paul Engel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574576
 
Petz - Re: "Why did Intel get such a paltry reduction in die size"

The chip size of the Tillamook and, in fact, all Intel chips, is not as good as AMD's K6 devices.

However, the trade-offs Intel made, resluting in larger die sizes, appear to be the correct ones - considering their (Intel's) excellent yields.

And it is YIELDS that make money - not small die sizes - although small die sizes do help if the process is debugged!

Paul


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News