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 (34334)	7/12/1998 5:12:00 PM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572214

Yousef, This is just a question so no need to fly off the handle ;-).. Is it not possible that AMD could (I didn't say probable) catch upto Intel's process performance for .18 micron or .13 micron (i.e. skip the one generation performance gap they have). I mean it seems _possible_.. pratical is another story all together.. or is this just something that is basically impossible due to experience requirements? Steve

To: Yousef who wrote (34334)	7/12/1998 6:22:00 PM
From: Dave Parr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572214

Yousef, RE: "My statements about AMD being 2-3 years behind Intel are based on performance. AMD's .25um process gate length and gate oxide thickness more closely match Intel's .35um process." Thank You for taking the time to explain in such detail. I now have a better sense of what you've been saying all along. I'm attempting to simplify your explanation; you're saying AMD has all the tools but they don't know how to use them as well as INTEL does. If this understanding is right, it would only take a few key people to help AMD to make great strides. Do you know how IBM's Process Technology compares with Intel's? If it is comparable, is it possible AMD could "learn" from IBM since they will be manufacturing processors for AMD? Thanks again......Dave

To: Yousef who wrote (34334)	7/12/1998 7:27:00 PM
From: JBoyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572214

Two To Three Years Behind This may be impossible to explain Yousef, but why will it take two to three years to develop? Wouldn't you say that AMD has gained on Intel in the last two years? Maybe they can close the gap.

To: Yousef who wrote (34334)	7/14/1998 2:46:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572214

Yousef, nice explanation of what typical IC manufacturing process steps are, but your comparisons of AMD/Intel are inaccurate: AMD supply voltage of 2.2V for .25um more closely matches Intel's .35um 2.5V process Sorry, Intels 0.35µ process was 2.8v, not 2.5v. The Intel 0.25µ voltage is 2.0. Last time I checked, AMD's 2.2 voltage was a lot closer to 2.0 than to 2.8! Alpha CPU from Digital (more transistors) and various RISC CPU's have used sub 2v supply voltage for years -- does this mean they are ahead of Intel in process technology? Since a process generation like .25um takes about 2-3 years to develop AMD's first full quarter of 0.35µ production was 2Q'97, when they made 450,000 K6's, mostly 166 and 200 MHz. Their first full quarter of 0.25µ production was 2Q'98, when they made 1.2M K6's and K6-2's using quarter micron, mostly at 300 MHz. That's ONE year, not 2-3. If Intel takes 2-3 years to get to 0.18µ (AMD K-7), they will be in deep doo-doo. Petz