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: dale_laroy who wrote (71739)	2/16/2002 10:12:14 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"The mobile Clawhammer will be introduced at 90nm in H2 2003, with a 90nm server chip following before the end of 2003. The desktop Clawhammer will not begin migrating to 90nm until H1 2004." According to AMD's current roadmap, mobile ClawHammer should ship towards the end of Q203. I doubt very seriously that AMD will delay the 90nm desktop version for almost a year. Since they will still be at Dresden for this, I suspect that they will have switch totally over to 90nm on the timescale that you suggest they will introduce the 90nm desktop. processor. amd.com

To: dale_laroy who wrote (71739)	2/16/2002 11:06:31 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Where did this come from? ... The desktop Clawhammer will not begin migrating to 90nm until H1 2004 Desktop CPUs Q1'02 Q2'02 Q3'02 Q4'02 H1'03 H2'03 2004 2005 ClawHammerS ? (0.065, SOI, 40mm2) ClawHammer (0.09, SOI, 64mm2) M4000 M4400 ? ClawHammer (0.13, SOI, 80mm2) M3400 ThoroughbredS (0.09, SOI, 50mm2) >2800+ Barton (0.13, SOI) 2800+ Thoroughbred (0.13, 80mm2, 1.6V) 2200+ 2600+ Palomino (0.18, 129mm2, 1.75V) 2000+ Appaloosa (0.13), 266Mhz FSB 1.5Ghz 1800+ 2000+ Morgan (0.13), 200Mhz FSB 1.4Ghz http://www.vr-zone.com/#2115 AMD Desktop Roadmap Re: The key is whether AMD's 50 million units per quarter capacity drives Intel to selling IA64 at unsustainably low prices to get it onto the corporate desktop. AMD has made a profit before with no processor priced over $150, and can probably do so with a 40mm2 Clawhammer. With half of a single 300mm fab and Clawhammer at 40mm2, AMD might even be able to make a profit while driving the price of the fastest speed grade Clawhammer to under $100. If Intel loses their ability to demand a premium for their processors, and is reduced to a combined total of IA64 and x86 processors equal to the number of Clawhammer units AMD is then selling, can they make a profit while maintaining four 300mm fabs? Well said. This is not the most likely outcome, but its probability is well above zero. Intel has committed itself to a very high cost structure, which it may have trouble supporting during the coming battle for the 64-bit "node."

To: dale_laroy who wrote (71739)	2/17/2002 12:03:23 AM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<The original report stated that Yamhill is a modification to P4, which means that physical addressing will be limited to the same as for P4.> The whole purpose of 64-bit extensions is to extend physical addressing. All other benefits are minor. If Yamhill does exist, it has 64-bit GPRs and addressing just like x86-64. Kap

To: dale_laroy who wrote (71739)	2/17/2002 12:43:38 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dale Re...I would hardly call any of the Yamhill press news, it is barely more than rumor. <<<<<< It was on one of the sites, maybe CNBC, that Intel was going to confirm the Yamhill rumors next week. For Intel customers to address a large physical address space, they will still need Itanium.<<<<<<< Which makes a lot of sense; as the biggest reason for 64 bits, is the additional address space. If Intel does that, Intel could well cripple both. Intel will hurt acceptance of Itanium, by supporting another 64 bit competitor; by crippling the address space, P4 will be at a decided disadvantage to Hammer. None of the rumors suggest that Intel has any plans of killing of Itanium. Itanium will, if it dies, do so without any push by Intel.< Itanium, at this stage, needs every ounce of help Intel can muster. Intel, by not standing solidly behind Itanium, will assure Itaniums demise. . If Intel loses their ability to demand a premium for their processors, and is reduced to a combined total of IA64 and x86 processors equal to the number of Clawhammer units AMD is then selling, can they make a profit while maintaining four 300mm fabs? <<<<<<< In a price war, Intel's big die theory will be a too big of a disadvantge for Intel to overcome; as the mean and lean usually win.