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 (51140)	2/26/1999 8:23:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571924

Re: "Since neither Yousef nor Elmer know the factual insulator thickness of the finished devices they cannot accurately judge the safety margins involved." I don't attempt to. What I can do is ask some obvious questions. Why did AMD boost the Vcc now and not 2-3 months ago? Considering that AMD chose not to ship product running at 2.4V in the past, even though 2.4V would certainly have allowed higher speed binsplit, what prompted them to do so now? What changes have taken place in AMD's process that allow for 2.4V now when it was deemed too high a Vcc to ship reliable product to in the past? I find it difficult to believe that AMD as added thickness to their gateoxides to solve reliability concerns that toped them out at 2.2v in the past. In the absence of any other conceivable explanation, the obvious interpretation is that what was too risky yesterday when AMD was posting a profit, is now acceptable today while AMD is facing huge losses. I don't need to measure their gateoxides to see that their standards have been relaxed, and I've seen enough process changes to know that improvements lower Vcc's not the other way around. This is desperation any way you look at it, you're just polishing turds. EP

To: RDM who wrote (51140)	2/27/1999 3:06:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571924

RDM - Re: "I believe that both Elmer and Yousef are making some kind of estimate without direct data. They a relying on a hunch" Here's the real data. Intel's 0.25 micron process uses a 40.8 Angstrom Thermally grown Silicon Dioxide gate thickness. This process uses a Vcc from 1.6 volts up to 2 volts MAX. Source: 1998 IEEE Soilds State Circuits Conference AMD's 0.25 micron process uses a 35 Angstrom Thermally grown Silicon Dioxide Gate thickness - 12% THINNER than Intel's. Source - 1999 IEEE Soild State Circuits Conference. AMD is using a JACKED-UP 2.4 VOLTS Vcc across these gates, 20% HIGHER than the maximum Intel Vcc. The net result is that the Electric Field across the AMD gates is 37% HIGHER than for the Intel Gates : (2.4/35)/(2.0/40) = 1.37 Paul