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: Ali Chen who wrote (36543)	8/31/1998 1:34:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571592

1. AMD K6-3 has 256L2 cache on a die of 118 mm2 2. Intel Mendocino has only 128kL2 but die is 154 mm2 Simple and clear: Intel is technically INCAPABLE to achieve the same device densities as AMD can. Well, we'll just have to wait and see if AMD can turn this "great advantage" into a profit. By the way, doesn't AMD use a process which adds one more layer than Intel's process? In my understanding, that extra layer will increase densities and reduce die size, but it will also reduce yields. Is this correct? I expect answers from both sides of the fence, especially Yousef, Ali, and Jim. Tenchusatsu

To: Ali Chen who wrote (36543)	8/31/1998 5:19:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571592

Ali - Re: "Proof - 1. AMD K6-3 has 256L2 cache on a die of 118 mm2 2. Intel Mendocino has only 128kL2 but die is 154 mm2 " Youy forgot this PROOF: Mendocino is available today in PCs everywhere. AMD's K6-3 isn't even released - and may not be until 1999. So where is the advantage of this smaller die size? Paul