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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (38999)	5/11/2001 12:05:12 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

A post from Chris Tom on amdzone.com AMD 760MP Review At AMDZone? Maybe Reported by: Chris Tom At: 7:40 PM Well, after losing my job at *ell, providing countless hours of work that benefits AMD, and working my ass off in general I have found out that someone or something at AMD will not allow me to review a 760MP based system from a server company I have contacted. I'm not sure whether this is what is happening to hardware sites in general yet, but I will try and find out. I would not publish this review before the NDA expires. I have plenty of experience with web servers. I have closely followed the development of the Tyan 760MP board. I've laid my hands on it at Comdex. I remember when it was the Dolphin back at Comdex 1999. I've busted my ass trying to get a system to review, and then it comes down to this. I can't review a new product that could only benefit not only AMD, Tyan, and the computer maker. That is illogical. Unless there is something to hide I don't understand it. There is no way in hell I'll get an AMD test system because they are apparently being as closely guarded at the cure to cancer would be. I understand that there is a extremely limited number of test systems. I've got no problem with that. But if I can find another source to get a review done, then why stop me? I don't know of anyone who is getting one, and I tell you that is a real rarity. Hopefully this will not happen with the other vendors I'm talking to. Somewhere up on high at AMD bad decisions are being made. I don't like the looks of it personally. Obviously the demand for information about the 760MP is great, and I am dedicated to giving my readers the best coverage of it, and will do so, 760MP in my spare bedroom or not. Anyway, back to trying to sell some ads so we don't have to charge you and so I can pay the bills. Joe

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (38999)	5/11/2001 12:13:14 AM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 275872

Dual MB pic forums.2cpu.com

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (38999)	5/11/2001 12:28:38 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>It's too late for .18um SOI. and makes NO sense if Intel is all ready at .13um with Tulatin.< Depends on whether the delay in 193nm laser optics is endemic or restricted to SVGI, as well as how long and uncertain the delay is. If Tualatin comes out on time, I have my doubts about the delay in delivery of 193nm laser optics being a problem with the design of the equipment. If the equipment is good enough to get one fab cranking out Tualatin at 130nm, its good enough to ramp four fabs. If Tualatin does not make an appearance in Q3 however, the problem may be a design problem confined to SVGI. >I still believe the IBM agreement is for .13um SOI (mobile Thoroughbreds)< The agreement is definitely for 130nm SOI. A foundry agreement would probably be for desktop Barton, with mobile Barton as well as Clawhammer and Sledgehammer being produced at Fab30. So far it appears that the agreement is strictly for the transfer of technology, which will enable AMD to use IBM's SOI process at Fab30, as well as IBM's engineering resources for the adaptation of Barton to SOI. >The question is the timing. I think second half 2002 would be the worse case assuming at least one redesign after first silicon. I'm assuming the remapping to a .13um IBM SOI process would take perhaps 5 months and that the work started last quarter. Thus... they could have first silicon sometime in the third quarter.< This seems reasonable, but if IBM uses SVGI equipment they will be subject to the same equipment delivery delays as Intel. This would place the earliest that AMD could take advantage of IBM's 130nm SOI process at Q2 2002, and adaptation of IBM's SOI process to Fab30 would take longer than 5 months. Still, Q2 2002 would seem probable even for adaptation of the IBM SOI process to Fab30. >I'm assuming the .13um bulk AMD design all ready has functional silicon.< If, as I suspect, the dual 1.8 GHz Athlon-H processors demoed recently are Thoroughbred processors, AMD does indeed have functional 130nm silicon. >If these assumptions are reasonable, with some luck, I could see a 2nd quarter 2002 release. If not.... a one quarter delay to the second half.< Since Barton is not supposed to ship until H2 2002, shipment in Q3 2002 could hardly be considered a delay. The strongest argument for H2 2002 is a perception by AMD that they will not need SOI for the 130nm Athlons until H2 2002. Judging from AMD's chart, they expect Thoroughbred to hit 2333 MHz before Barton is introduced. And, since SOI will add cost to production, why migrate to SOI before it is needed. Of course, even if AMD does not need SOI to push the peak speed grade of the desktop Athlon higher than 2333 MHz, SOI would still be useful in Q2 for the introduction of mobile Barton as well as a workstation variant of Barton.