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 (54099)	4/3/1999 3:54:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 1579924

RDM - Re: " Wouldn't the answer vary some with chip architecture? High speed wires are important in architectures that have lots of long wires. High speed gates are more important in designs that do not have lots of long wires and have lots of cascaded gate delays." Good points. Chip lay out and proper floor planning also plays a major role. Paul

To: RDM who wrote (54099)	4/3/1999 6:48:00 PM
From: kash johal	Respond to of 1579924

RDM, Re: Cu vs Al for INTC and AMD I believe the answer is a tad bit more complicated. Intel appears to use a less agressive rule set for it's contacts, via's and metal pitch. It results in a more robust "bullet proof" higher yielding process but also results in larger die sizes. Inherently RC will be less for such a process and so benefits from a reduction in RC will less in percentage terms. AMD on the other hand employs a very agressive metal pitch and contact/via sizes. It's die are smaller but also closer to the "hairy" edge. It will benefit much more in terms of the RC reduction of cu- even at 0.18 micron. One could see a 5-10% increase in clock speeds for AMD versus possibly only a 1-3% increase for Intel at 0.18 micron. So the rationale behind AMD's choice is solid. Unfortunately it is a huge risk as well if they flub the Dresden volume ramp. Regards, Kash J.