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: Rink who wrote (162473)	6/27/2005 1:30:57 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Yeah, but Merom is probably a bit over 1 year away, AND we don't yet know how much power it will require, do we? And regarding the core, 64b affects more than integer data. Address lines, for instance. So it may not be double the number (thanks to FP, for instance), but it is a substantial increase.

To: Rink who wrote (162473)	6/27/2005 2:06:44 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

ixse It takes YEARS from requirements to production. It really does. The primary reason why Intels 64b mobile solution is late is because of management failure to give the go-ahead for the right set of requirements (being a 64b Dothan), plus the fact that it takes years before start of production. You might very well be right though about the "not even a year from now" part though because Merom is only due H2 06 I agree with you about the definition stage and the time involved developing a new chip. As for Meron, it's tapped out already and typically it's a year from tapeout to product.

To: Rink who wrote (162473)	6/27/2005 4:01:38 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: The can and they will. Simplified here's how: Yonah is a dual core dothan. You're right - that's a good point. But it's kind of moot in the context of the original discussion which was Elmer's contention that AMD's SOI process was a useless waste because Intel can make Dothan in the same power footprint as Turion (maybe even a few percent less). My point was that producing the 64-bit Turion in that power footprint was a lot more of a challenge than was, say, producing Athlon XP-M or Dothan and that AMD's more advanced SOI process was what let it do so when Intel couldn't. I think you were pointing out that if they can do a dual core 32-bit Yonah next year they could (by my logic) do a single core 64-bit part - which makes sense. But by the time dual 32-bit core Yonah is out, AMD's dual 64-bit core "Taylor" will be out or getting close. The notion that today's Intel process is as good as (or better than) today's AMD process (Elmer's contention) because of something that's scheduled for next year, does not necessarily follow. Regards, Dan