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: RDM who wrote (40281)	10/29/1998 12:44:00 AM
From: kash johal	Respond to of 1573384

RDM, Thanks for a well balanced response. Hope to see more posts from you, Kash

To: RDM who wrote (40281)	10/29/1998 12:50:00 AM
From: Aitch	Respond to of 1573384

Greetings thread, I have been "arbitrarily lurking" on this thread for a while now. At last, RDM points out to us that the vitriolic slanging match between INTC and AMD "supporters" is pointless. Thanks for an intelligently laid out response. I too would like to see both INTC and AMD doing well... H

To: RDM who wrote (40281)	10/29/1998 2:12:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573384

<AMD frequently chooses more aggressive layout rules than Intel resulting in many times a smaller die size and more yield candidates per wafer.> Thanks for pointing that out, RDM. I've always suspected this was the case in the 0.25 micron process, but I never knew that this was a regular pattern between AMD and Intel. Microprocessor Report points out that IBM has the luxury of trying out new technologies which may be tricky to implement because their volumes aren't quite as large as Intel's. Perhaps the same goes for AMD, who's low volumes (relative to Intel) allows them to try more aggressive rules. Intel, on the other hand, can't really afford to do that, since any hiccup in implementation would lead to a huge negative spike in their profitability. That's one reason why Intel isn't going to copper until the 0.13 micron generation. The technology for copper still isn't established yet, despite IBM's announcements. This, of course, is a pretty risky assumption on Intel's part, and only time will tell if Intel made the right decision. On the other hand, AMD as a smaller, lower volume company has less to lose by being more aggressive with copper. It's the typical drive of an underdog. Tenchusatsu