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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (183947)	4/2/2006 1:17:43 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Thanks, that's good info to mull over. I have a question re >> But while the 90nm parts clocked up to 3.8ghz, the 65nm parts top out at 3.6ghz (so far, at least). Doesn't the trend seem that 65 nm parts top out at lower speed than 90 nm ? But the advantage of 65 nm (especially in a 300 mm fab), that the fab produces far more product in a given amount of time ? So it is more a cost and heat advantage than a clock rate issue ? Shouldn't we expect that when AMD transitions to 65 nm, they'll get cost savings, but not higher speed parts ? The added performance will come from extra cores (at lower speed). I don't know if this is relevant, but wasn't the Chrtered fab 7 producing x-box processors at 3.2 GHz ? I think this implies that 65 nm just does not achieve same speed bins as 90 nm. I'm not saying this from knowledge, it just looks that way. Where would one look to see if that's true or not ? sarmad