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 (36730)	9/3/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Time Traveler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571068

Ali, what a snake you are! Have your forgotten about K6's very aggressive design rules which although reduces the die size but puts a heavy penalty on yield? We went through all that months ago! Time Traveler

To: Ali Chen who wrote (36730)	9/3/1998 11:36:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571068

I don't want to touch off another flame war between you and Yousef. But Yousef has stated that one key advantage that Intel has is they have increased the FET drive current. So for a given size device their transistor will be faster (but also draw more current). SO INTELS PROCESS IS FASTER BUT NOT AS DENSE AS AMDS. Intels yields are also better as in % of good die per wafer (Paul I think has stated some stunning yield numbers). I also suspect that Intel has a bunch of redundancy of transistors to increase yeilds. AMD's DIE SIZES ARE ALMOST 50% less so they get more die per wafer (gross die per wafer -- unyielded) but lower net percentage yield. If we assume that wafer costs are equal and Intels yields are 80%, then AMD's yields need to be 40-45% to NET out same number of good die per wafer and therefore have same die cost. Once (AND IF) AMD can get yields above 45-50% they have a lower die cost. So who's process is better is an endless argument as each company has made engineering compromises. What I want to know is how fast will the K-3 be on motorola's Cu process early next year at 0.18 micron. It will be an interesting horse race and I fully expect Q3 99 AMD/MOT will have the lead. Regards, Kash

To: Ali Chen who wrote (36730)	9/4/1998 2:48:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571068

Using the whole power of logical deduction, I would conclude that the AMD process technology is vastly superior to that of Intel. Even logical deduction call fall apart when all the facts are not known. No offense, but I don't think you or I have enough of the facts necessary to come to a conclusion that AMD must be that far ahead of Intel. Tenchusatsu

To: Ali Chen who wrote (36730)	9/6/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571068

Ali, Re: "I would conclude that the AMD process technology is vastly superior to that of Intel. Yousef would probably disagree" AMD's process technology is only good at generating operating LOSSES, Ali. Intel's .25um process holds a 100mhz speed advantage ... Remember Ali, customers pay for performance (Mhz), NOT for die size ... and ... obviously, AMD even with a smaller die is NOT the low cost producer. Now tell me again Ali, why did AMD optimize their process for small die size ?? <ggg> Make It So, Yousef