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: combjelly who wrote (196830)	5/15/2006 1:36:38 PM
From: eracer	Respond to of 275872

Re: If NGA on 65nm is such a killer product as you have presented it, why rush to 45nm? The trend toward multi-core x86 CPUs is why rushing forward to 45-nm and beyond is important. Kentsfield/Clovertown with 4MBx2 L2 will be nearly 300 mm^2. A 45-nm version of Clovertown at 175 mm^2 which uses less power and/or can eventually be clocked higher would be quite an improvement. It also makes combining 4 cores on a single piece of silicon more practical.

To: combjelly who wrote (196830)	5/15/2006 1:57:26 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

why rush to 45nm? To crush the competition. It is going to have all kinds of problems that affect bin splits and yields, such has been the trend since 130nm and has only been getting worse... Apparently 45nm is looking particularly good for Intel: theinquirer.net EARLIER WE POINTED OUT that the 45nm shrink of Merom is going to be called Penryn, the Moldavian term for moldy Apple(1). The interesting thing is not about the chip itself, but the process. Since the 65nm process is on the verge of release, it means that this coming IDF, they will probably start talking about the 45nm process. Think happy thoughts here people, from what several sources have told the INQ, the leakage problem is solved, and I mean solved, not lessened. This will be a massive gain for Intel, and unless AMD and IBM can match it, it will pretty much hand it the mobile space, not to mention anything else where power matters. From what we have been told, the 65nm process is better than 90nm in leakage, but it is an advance, not an answer by any means. Sadly, the process breakthroughs can't be backported to 65 in a way that would do the same there. There are some other 45nm breakthroughs, and I am not using that word in lightly, in the yield area that will get sucked into 65nm. Expect improvements on this process over time, and then a huge leap at 45. [...]