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: Steve Porter who wrote (54426)	4/6/1999 9:41:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570746

Steve - Re: <On the positive side you have reduced cost> Do you know how many mask layers the HIPster process AMD is going to use has? People keep saying cost is reduced by going to Cu. I would like to roughly gauge the cost of the HIPster vs. P858, which Intel indicates will have 21 mask layers. PB

To: Steve Porter who wrote (54426)	4/6/1999 10:56:00 AM
From: Shane Geary	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570746

Re: "I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not that moving to Cu at .18 won't gain any benefit.. there certainly are some (some are more tangible than others). What I'm trying to say is that moving to Cu while going to the smallest geometry you have worked with yet, in your main fab plant CAN if not done properly be a HUGE disaster." Some very good points in that post. I guess AMD just keep doubling their bets. Shane