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: Yousef who wrote (54029)	4/2/1999 7:49:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571038

Yousef, Sad thing is the risk isn't necessary if you understand FET/device architecture and processing. It is very sad that no one at AMD or Motorola understands transistors. Scumbria

To: Yousef who wrote (54029)	4/2/1999 8:00:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571038

Yousef - Re: <BTW, the main risk is not "contamination" due to Copper ... This can be easily controlled.> I am not personally convinced of this. I agree it should be relatively straight forward to generate a procedure that outlines how to contain Cu. It's the execution in a production environment I don't know about. Granted, I might just be a Nervous Nellie about this, as I don't know how robust AMD's Cu containment plan is, physical proximity of front-end to back-end processing, etc. Maybe they'll be fine in this regard. As I believe you have pointed out, another Cu risk is it's immature stature at this point, besides the fact it seems unnecessary for .18, which relates to cost vs. performance. Cu doesn't appear to provide a significant performance gain for .18. IMHO, PB