4 Sep
2001
4 Sep
'01
2:15 p.m.
At 02:44 PM 9/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Carlos Murillo wrote:
IBM was a latecomer in the alliance. At the time this was agreed,
DEC's Alpha outclocked all other mass-production cpus, but Intel
was outspending everyone in production technology research.
IA64 is the result of a chain of decisions that started a long
time ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
HP needed better production technology than what
they had in
order for their new chip design to stick. The choices were DEC,
Intel and IBM. Guess what happened.
IBM is doing the multi-layer ceramic interconnect packaging for the
Itanium. 
4 Sep
4 Sep
4:23 p.m.
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Carlos Murillo wrote:
Technically, IBM isn't even a member of the alliance. IBM is simply the
best place to outsource large-scale production of ceramic interconnects.
We have no say in the design of the interconnect, but only in the
production of the interconnect. Production decisions can make big
differences in performance though, and I might be biased, but I would have
to say that the MLC Interconnect production at IBM is superior to that of
Kyocera or NKK (the two other main players in the industry -- IBM's
production is of significantly larger scale... something like 80,000 part
starts/day).
Peace... Sridhar
Sridhar Ayengar
Interconnect Products
IBM Corp.
IBM is doing
the multi-layer ceramic interconnect packaging for the
Itanium.
IBM was a latecomer in the alliance. At the time this was agreed,
DEC's Alpha outclocked all other mass-production cpus, but Intel
was outspending everyone in production technology research.
IA64 is the result of a chain of decisions that started a long
time ago.
8510
days inactive
8510
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
vance＠ikickass.org