Replies to post #17796 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Elmer Phud]

Jerry

Of course, this begs the question of what will happen to AMD's process development schedule. With IBM acting as Hector's sugar daddy on process technology, AMD will be in serious trouble to keep up with Intel.

Well that does sort of fall out of the thought process doesn't it?

By the way, has AMD and/or IBM actually demo'd a functional 65nm SRAM (or any other kind of logic) design? Remember, Intel did their first SRAM demo back in November 2003:

To my knowledge no one except Intel has shown anything, but that's been pretty much the historical norm.

[wbmw]

Re: this begs the question of what will happen to AMD's process development schedule. With IBM acting as Hector's sugar daddy on process technology, AMD will be in serious trouble to keep up with Intel.

IMO, it would be a serious mistake to discount IBM's desire to be on the forefront of manufacturing technology. Even with a money-losing proposition for IBM Microelectronics, they have enough profitable businesses to fund what's essentially a highly strategic and leverageable IP incubator.

[Dan3]

Re: has AMD and/or IBM actually demo'd a functional 65nm SRAM

What sort of "demo" of SRAM were you looking for?

AMD presented details on their 45nm transistors in 2003:
http://www.semizone.com/news/item?archive_p=1&category=1&news_item_id=103582

[SemiconEng]

Of course, this begs the question of what will happen to AMD's process development schedule. With IBM acting as Hector's sugar daddy on process technology, AMD will be in serious trouble to keep up with Intel.


I think any deal for IBM to get out of the semiconductor manufacturing business, would most likely have to contain provisions from the buyer that would cover the continuation of AMD's process technology agreements in some form. What form? Beats me, but intuitive logic tells me, that if I were AMD writing a Process Technology sharing agreement, I would include language to cover me, in case of this type of potential sale situation. Wouldn't you?