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: TGPTNDR who wrote (133626)	9/23/2004 6:33:07 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

TGP, please re-read dumb-$'s posts to me, with an eye to tone, before playing morality moderator. As of November 1, yes, I think it is clear that 90nm final product will be cheaper than 130nm final product. But another important issue is that Sempron 3100+ should be a big volume seller, and continuing to product that on 130nm doesn't help AMD get their lines converted to 90nm. Doug

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (133626)	9/23/2004 9:37:48 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"I think that's what we're seeing here and I hope -- and think -- it's beginning of life problems" It's hard to say at this point. The fact that AMD is still producing their fastest chips on 130nm isn't a cause for concern, that always happens. It isn't known whether or not 90nm is a power hog, so far we have a single datum point that indicates that a particular 90nm seems to run hotter than its 130nm equivalent. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case, including improper BIOS support. I will mention that this is sort of dubious, I am not sure why that particular voltage was picked by the BIOS given the possible choices... I don't think static leakage in the caches is the answer. If so, then the 35 watt mobile chips wouldn't exist. The rational for the pulling in of the Sempron 90nm has several possible answers, depending on what you want to believe. It could be a sign that AMD needs the extra capacity and the smaller die would help with that. But it could also be that AMD just can't push beyond a certain clock rate without in essence overclocking. So if they can't get a premium for faster chips, they might as milk what they can out of 90nm. Or some combination of both. Or neither.