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: kapkan4u who wrote (76572)	4/5/2002 11:49:12 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

In article <a8464d$q18$1@news.net.uni-c.dk>, Erik Corry <erik@arbat.com> wrote: >Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> The point is that, if AMD can get the Sledgehammer out only 6 months >> behind the McKinley and outperform it 2:1 on SpecInt, there is a >> very strong pressure on Intel to announce the Skunkworks project >> and thus kill IA-64. > >Why? See below :-) >As far as I can see, no major OEM is going to announce servers >based on Sledgehammer. People don't buy 4 way servers and up >from screwdriver shops. So for people looking for a server >what is the competition going to be? For adventurous Linux types >Sledgehammer may well be interesting (and Clawhammer will be a >hit) but what proportion of that market are they? Small. But that isn't the point. The main reason that OEMs are playing down any AMD discussions, experiments and even plans is that Intel bears serious grudge. As I said a LONG time back, no OEM of any consequence is going to announce any Sledgehammer plans until it has taken the decision to stop pulling its forelock to Intel and possibly even drop Intel in favour of AMD. AMD and its believers have told me that I can expect to be told plans under NDA in the first half of 2002 (i.e. now). Well, I thanked them and followed my own counsel. Reports will start leaking in the third quarter of 2002 and become serious in the last quarter. It is likely that there will be no announcements until 2003. Yes, I am predicting hard figures again :-) Note that this really does mean that I don't expect announcements to lead products by more than 3 months - as distinct from the year we have become accustomed to (and 2 years for IA-64). So the current lack of statements proves nothing, either way. And please note the "either way". >I think McKinley's performance relative to SPARC and Power4 is >going to much more important. Even more important are >non-performance things like the OEM issues, commercial Unix >support or lack of it, etc. I agree completely. But here we do have some information. Intel has managed to get domination of the small server market by some very hard selling, but took ages to break into even that because of its lack of attention to RAS and SMP and support for the software primitives needed for those. This is the main reason that the large server market is still solidly 'RISC'. The IA-64 was and is an attempt to dominate that market as well. AMD has traditionally sold into the 'happy hacker' market, but it is VERY clear that the Hammer range is an attempt to break into the Intel-dominated small-server market. Don't look at the mere performance claims, look at the RAS and similar aspects. So AMD is girding up its loins for an attack on Intel's heartland, which is something it has never done before. >> Would this cause the OEMs to hold off investing in IA-64 systems, >> the way that they held off investing in RISC systems following >> certain Intel Merced announcements? > >1) It's too late to hold off investing in IA-64. The investments >are made and they are ready to try to roll when McKinley gets >here. Do you remember the PowerPC? EXACTLY the same was true of that. Yes, the whole scale was smaller, but the proportions were much the same. Only, then, Intel was AMD and IBM/Motorola were Intel. >2) AMD isn't Intel Not yet, but it is working on it :-) And remember when it was said that the PowerPC would dominate the industry because Intel wasn't IBM? There are a couple of further points. Even a year ago, all the OEMs were bowing and scraping to Intel, and putting up with the most appallingly one-sided IA-64 contracts because they were terrified of being left out. They were then thoroughly shafted by Intel, who got them to develop products for the Itanic which was then cancelled. Intel DID then reverse slightly, and allow it to be released for development, but the OEMs lost a LOT of money. And so did the ISVs. In the past 6 months, it has been clear to me from talking to them that they are no longer intimidated by Intel. Some are seriously pissed off, but it is amazing how much sewage people will wallow in when there is serious money at stake. So they are pursuing their IA-64 lines, yes, but I get the impression that they are no longer prepared to suspend other projects just to keep IA-64 on schedule despite Intel's delays. Hence my remark (again a while back) that we shall know what they are thinking by the products that OEMs announce (WITH dates, not ones to be delivered sometime) immediately following the launch of the McKinley. Which I am pretty certain will happen, unlike the Itanic, where I was suspicious it might not. And, similarly, a year ago, Intel could do no wrong in the eyes of Wall Street. The fact that us 'techies' knew that the Itanic was sinking (and some of us had known that for 2 years) had not reached the Messrs Moneybags. But there have been a couple of thoroughly negative articles about the IA-64 project in places like the Wall Street Journal since then. So cracks are appearing. Now, AMD are no slouches at marketing, dirty tricks and all that, and know the realities of the industry better than I do. We can be almost certain that they are planning to get the Sledghammer versus McKinley issue raised in such fora. And even financial journalists will use soundbites like "Twice the transaction rate (as measured by TPC)" - if that is convincing. So watch this space. We are in for a really spectacular fight. Godzilla versus King Kong and all that. Just be careful not to get underfoot, as they aren't strong on rules, and there isn't an arena around that will hold them :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679 groups.google.com Thanks to Combjelly for pointing to other messages on the thread...

To: kapkan4u who wrote (76572)	4/6/2002 12:25:50 AM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 275872

AFAIK Intel is using FSG on the 130nm node. Here is another article on low-k. Gee... That explains why Intel is having such trouble with their .13u process while AMD is breezing along! EP

To: kapkan4u who wrote (76572)	4/6/2002 6:41:52 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 275872

kapkan4u, Interesting, however I am not sure I like this. >>>> The film also features a total modulas level of eight Giga Pascals (GPa) and an overall hardness of 0.4GPa. It also does not absorb moisture. The material features a breakdown voltage of only 1.8MV/cm at 200 degree C and a leakage current of 5-10 Amp/cm square. >>>>>>> Those breakdown voltages and current leakage look funny to me, almost like a reporter typo. Bill

To: kapkan4u who wrote (76572)	4/6/2002 9:07:48 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: AFAIK Intel is using FSG on the 130nm node Yes, the large majority of chips rolling off fab lines with 0.13-micron transistors will use fluorinated silicon glass (FSG), a CVD dielectric leftover from previous technology generations. Yep, that sounds like an Intel product, all right. Intel is the Trabant of CPU companies ural2.hszk.bme.hu - Intel's vision of the future is selling obsolete technology at high prices to customers who have no alternative.

To: kapkan4u who wrote (76572)	4/6/2002 10:29:39 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

Kap, the problem that I see with the product from DSI is that AMD could find it very attractive. Granted, it is just a puff piece in a trade magazine, but if it is anywhere close to accurate, it sounds perfect for AMD. And that could be a trap. AMD, and this is probably Jerry's influence, likes these type of gambles. Some times it pays off, sometimes not. If this new film and technique reduces or eliminates the problems with reproducability, cracking and peeling, then it will be something special. I wonder who is taking the beta tool?