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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193434)	4/12/2006 11:25:03 PM
From: gzubeck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Man are you behind, I'm thinking for the past 2+ years...no matter...whatever Intel throws out there corporate America will buy just fine...so no need to defend Intel...the competition is already sewn up.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193434)	4/12/2006 11:34:34 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Are we ignoring a whole lot of history ?" Your version of history is at variance with what really happened. I am trying to be polite. For what it is worth, it is SPARC instead of spark. The name is an acronym. It means something, do you know what it is? DEC did the Alpha, it wasn't a collaboration as you seem to imply. If you want to describe the acquisitions, it was DEC->Compaq->HP. You want history? Look up Fairchild. They were the dominant semiconductor company for a long while. Both Intel and AMD were founded by Fairchildren. The takeaway is that being a dominant company means squat. As Dilbert well knows, pointy hair bosses means your company becomes a resume killer. Intel has pointy hair bosses right now. Will they survive? Given the history of the semi industry, that seems to be a matter of luck.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193434)	4/13/2006 12:45:28 AM
From: etchmeister	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Are we ignoring a whole lot of history ? I don't know about Jerry Sanders but it appears he did one right move and that was NexGen (I recall being in AMD lobby and there was a poster of "Raiders of the lost Arc" but Jerry S. was Indiana Joe - very "funny" but what culture clash compared to Intel; you ask yourself how serious is this guy really - just think about AMD customer would visit the fab and see the poster); At this time AMD's manufacturing sucked - the quarter was litterally hinging on keeping half a dozen metal etchers running 24x7; Duran (I guess the guy now in charge at Spansion) was in charge and he thanked us because we helped making the quarter. All that is long time ago but it seems Hector with his Moto background (at that time Motorola' was pushing Six Sigma program) helped straighten out manufacturing at AMD. While "googling" around I came up with a blurb that INTC's die size was 1.7x compared to AMD (2002) and supposedly at equal technology node AMD will always have an advantage with regards to die size. UMC was selected as manufacturing partner but it never took off. Some of AMD posters are overly fanatic but it's a huge accomplishment to compete successfully with Fab 30 which is 200mm. But one needs to look towards future: 1.) AMD needs to get 300 mm process going at 90nm to support manufacturing plan; 2.) at the same time must get 65nm going without impacting manufacturing 3.) my guess by the time AMD gets its 65nm Intel will start cranking up 45nm 4.) And than there is what I call "Pearl Harbour effect" - in case Intel underestimated AMD they now know what's at stake. I could be wrong but I think it's overly optimistic that CHRT could pull off 65 nm way before AMD. (BTW: was CHRT discussed during CC at all after all the positive noise) I believe this was the one "wise" decision made by J.S. cpu-info.com BTW: looks like Intel pulled in additional third fab for 65 nm IDF Taiwan: Intel confirms packages for Conroe and Woodcrest, but remains fuzzy on Merom Printer friendly Related stories Comments Email to a friend Latest news Related topic: Hot systems Advertisement Vyacheslav Sobolev, DigiTimes.com, Taipei [Tuesday 11 April 2006] At IDF Taiwan, Intel officially confirmed packaging for two of its first 65nm dual-core processors (Conroe and Woodcrest) based on the next-generation Intel Core microarchitecture, but failed to clarify packaging on a third processor (Merom) using Intel Core. According to Dan Casaletto, vice president of Intel’s digital enterprise group and director of microprocessor architecture and planning, the desktop Conroe processor will utilize the LGA 775 package, which has been in use since 2004 when it was introduced for the Pentium 4 platform. The Woodcrest chip will target dual-processor servers and workstations, Intel said last month at IDF San Francisco. Casaletto confirmed that the processor is designed to support the new LGA 771 socket that will appear in the market with the coming launch of the 65nm Xeon processor known as Dempsey (Dempsey will be not based on the Intel Core microarchitecture). Conroe and Woodcrest are both targeted to be launched in the third quarter of this year. Casaletto also said that Intel intends to make its first quad-core offerings for desktops (Kentsfield) and dual-processor servers and workstations (Clovertown) pin-to-pin compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest, respectively. Concerning the Merom processor for notebook applications, Intel was less clear. Casaletto stated Merom will initially support one of the current Core Duo and Core Solo processor sockets to maintain compatibility with the Napa notebook platform (both processors are available in 478-pin mPGA and 479-pin mBGA packages). And next year, it will move to another socket with the Santa Rosa platform. However, Casaletto mentioned that a 479-pin mPGA package will be used to help Merom maintain compatibility with the Napa platform, but this does not seem to be currently supported by Intel’s Core Duo and Core Solo products, according to Intel specifications. During a later Q&A session, Intel representatives were not able to clear up the contradiction. Intel already has three 12-inch fabs ramping up 65nm processor production (two in Oregon and one in Arizona), according to Casaletto. Last month at IDF in San Francisco, Intel mentioned just two of them as having commenced 65nm production, with a second Oregon fab being added since then. Later this year, Intel will add one more fab (in Ireland) to this list, according to the company.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193434)	4/13/2006 8:53:53 AM
From: j3pflynn	Respond to of 275872

Sarmad - Wake up! That was then, this is now.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193434)	4/13/2006 9:33:50 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Sarmad, well right now I'm wondering if you really don't know or if you are doing this purposefully. Actually I'm not really wondering anymore. Being pro-Intel is very much OK of course, being plain and constantly ignorant is too, but being a troll is not. Regards, Rink

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (193434)	4/14/2006 3:46:11 AM
From: aleph0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Suggest you read the book "inside intel" ! // Are we ignoring a whole lot of history ? Intel threw crumbs to AMD as a second source to satisfy IBM's demand back in IBM PC days. AMD didn't win anything on its own. // Intel actually only got the contract because AMD agreed to second source. IBM was adamant about AMD second-sourcing, not about Intel being the main partner. JS had friends at IBM at the time and AMD was doing ( highly reliable ) chips for the US military ! // Then when Intel cut AMD off from 386, AMD went whining to the courts to claim that the 8086 license extended to 80386. If AMD had a real product (instead of a second source substitute) they'd come up with a new design, like IBM/Apple power pc, or sun spark or DEC/HP alpha. Of course you'll notice those are all dead. And that's what will happen to AMD if they stray too far from making copies of Intel. // It is well known that the X86 "architecture" is the cripple of the industry, but thanks to Intel marketing & MS, we have to live with it ! IBM chose 8086 rather than MC68xxx because they were using MC68xxx in their midrange System36's at the time ( that cost up to ca. 1 mio. DM a piece )! They wanted a "poor" architecture for the home PC .. and got it, from Intel ! Ironically, the most primitive OS (DOS) and the worst chip architecture(X86) have become industry standard ! ..says something about marketing I think !