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 (27886)	1/14/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: Yougang Xiao	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572405

Yousef: <<If AMD is ramping the .25um process in Austin, then the right thing for AMD is to move many of their technical people (engineers, techs, operators) to the Austin Fab to insure a "smoother" startup.>> Thanks, and two questions for you: 1. Assuming AMD taken steps as you suggested (their internal organization realignment recently announced), what are the odds for a successful 0.25 conversation at Fab 25? 2. Do you think AMD's decision of fully going to 0.25 a RIGHT one? TIA

To: Yousef who wrote (27886)	1/14/1998 10:17:00 PM
From: James Word	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572405

Yousef RE: AMD Process Dev. in SC or Austin. Doesn't Intel develop it's processes remotely, in the Valley and in Portland? Their 0.25um manufacturing is done in N.M., A.Z. and maybe Ireland. They (Intel) seem to be able to do it rather well. Of course Intel's "Copy Exactly" philosophy dictates that process planning starts with planning of fab designs years in advance and process are usually transferred on "exactly" identical tool sets. I wonder if AMD's process problems are partly related to lithography, specifically alignment. Since I read on this thread that their transistor cell size is smaller than Intel's, their alginment budgets must be very small. I heard from informed sources that Intel's 0.25um Pentium II process doesn't aggressively push alignment as much as CD tolerance spec's. Am I correct that speed binning is more directly impacted by CD control and less by alignment control? Is this why Intel decided to scrafice some die size, to pick up benefits in speed binning (higher yielding high MHz parts)? James Word