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: Joe NYC who wrote (156879)	4/19/2005 11:26:04 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe with a side benefit of being able to salvage some die where 1 core may be bad. I'm beginning to think this may not be true.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (156879)	4/19/2005 1:32:33 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

with a side benefit of being able to salvage some die where 1 core may be bad. Several people on this thread have made such comments, but is this believable? The power and thermal characteristics of such a device would make it distinct from AMD's normal single core products, so they would not be directly substituted. Perhaps they could be sold in OEM deals where this fact could be hidden from the customer.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (156879)	4/20/2005 6:47:12 AM
From: DDB_WO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Another DC Opteron die size estimation It's already a tradition - I did it back in 2003 :) (http://www.athlon.de/printthread.php?Board=UBB8&main=641781&type=post) Last year I calculated 208 mm² (http://aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=115097494&forumid=1), but don't have my notes (it was either based on subtracting the missing HT link/DDR interface areas or the pic out of AMDs EDA tool). Now I'll do it based on a good quality DC photo (from epscontest, AMD analyst day, nov 2004) and a good quality 90nm Opteron photo (Bill Siegle presentation autumn 2003): The DC is 272x335 px (+/-1 per dimension) and the SC is 347x235 px. Scaling the SC down to the same width (the horizontal dimension on the photos - and upscaling the DC would only increase the error) it would be 272x184 (+/- 1) So if 272x184 is 114 mm² (439 px/mm²), then 272x335 = 207.5 mm² (+/- 1.5).