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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (54207)	4/5/1999 7:56:00 AM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577917

Re: "I thought AMD uses local interconnect, which allows them to achieve higher transistor densities than Intel at the same feature size." I think you'll also find that Dixon (256k L2) is less than 2 times 24mm2 the size of the PII. Kevin

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (54207)	4/5/1999 8:01:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1577917

re: "I thought AMD uses local interconnect, which allows them to achieve higher transistor densities than Intel at the same feature size." As I understand it, Local Interconnect (M0, or, Metal Zero) is one process item that can allow for greater feature density because interconnect routing options are increased. Intel's previous generation processes have not used this feature ,and won't again at .18. I believe this is mainly due to Intel's apparent argument that the path to overall speed is through enhancements to transistor characteristics, therefore M0 is not necessary or desirable. Also, M0 may be perceived as adding cost, unnecessary complexity, and a potential yield hit, with little to offer with regard to improving interconnect effectiveness. I believe there may also be some design tricks that can help overcome comparatively reduced feature densities. PB