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: Time Traveler who wrote (26782)	12/16/1997 12:35:00 AM
From: Brian Hutcheson	Respond to of 1574491

John , get your facts straight K6 on .25 is 68mm2 and not 80 mm2 in die size , Brian

To: Time Traveler who wrote (26782)	12/16/1997 1:36:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574491

JYWang, re:<Petz is shocked about 0.25um MMX being as large as 95 mm^2 vs. 0.25um K6 being 80 mm^2> No, K6 (0.25) is 68 mm^2 vs 95 mm^2 for Intel Tillamook. It looks to me like Intel did not reduce gate dimensions in their 0.25 process. Can you give Intel's gate size? <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 explained above, I don't think local interconnects tell the whole story. Once mastered, the local interconnects will reduce costs. Short term cost but long term gain; it killed AMD in '97, but '98 is a different story. Intel is afraid to try anything new. Grove's paranoia is finally coming back to bite him. Petz