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: TGPTNDR who wrote (51139)	2/26/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571821

tgptndr, <How would you limit voltage?> According to the article of one of the founding fathers of the CMOS FET scaling approach, R.H Dennard of IBM Microelectronics (Proceedings of IEEE, Vol.83 No4, pp.595-606, 1995), the theoretical range of power-supply voltage for the 0.25um process is 2.5-1.8, with oxide thickness of 60 to 50A. It depends on which scenario the process is optimized for - "high-performance", or "low power". Have a nice weekend.

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (51139)	2/26/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: Aaron Cooperband	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571821

tgptndr - re: "It looks like AMD can yield significant quantities at 400Mhz, and 450MHz, and that their 400 MHz processor is faster in most important respects than the INTC 500 MHz processor. Doesn't that leave INTC at least one speed grade behind in process technology?" If you are using benchmark performance as your measure, then why does everyone care so much about MHz? And why talk about "speed bins?" The term is meaningless when you look at benchmark performance. It seems to me that all else being equal MHz is the primary selling point of both AMD and Intel, and there must be some way to compare the chips' performance on a more normalized basis. Aaron