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 (26844)	12/17/1997 7:55:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574260

JYWang, re<95mm Tillamook die size> - this number came from Paul Engel: techstocks.com Previously, I had thought the Tillamook was 80 mm^2, but even that's only a 1/3 shrink from the P55C, whereas AMD achieved a 58% reduction. So you DON'T THINK the local interconnects tell the whole story but DO THINK die size tell the whole story. Could you elaborate on this DON'T THINK and DO THINK? AMD used local interconnects on both the 0.35 K6 and the 0.25 K6, so local interconnects cannot explain why the K6 (0.35) has 2.38 times the die size of the K6 (0.25), while the P55C (0.35) has 1.26 times the die size of the Tillamook (0.25). Is the poor improvement in die size for Intel the result of not doing a full re-layout like AMD did or is it because of some other weakness in Intel's 0.25 process? Or does local interconnect give greater improvement as the process size is shrunk? I don't know, I'm asking you. Petz