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 (201632)	6/12/2006 6:39:48 AM
From: BUGGI-WO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

[edited 2.] @Combjelly - 65nm In the last time, the discussion always went to the price and/ or performance side, especially with non introduced parts. ;-) Am I the only one who thinks about production volume? I'm not sure, when AMD turned the X2 knob to the right, but I don't have "bad feelings" when it comes to the new price structure, I have more "fear", that AMD cannot ship all the additional demand which will come in the next time. Some posters think that with NGA, AMD CPU demand will be "halted", I'm sure just the opposite will occur ... Edit: Just to add this to the comment above. Up to date (as said) I couldn't see big shortages overall. A64 supply is looking EXTREMLY healthy on 939 and AM2. Semprons look good, some shortages here or there, nothing special. X2 on 939 looks best I have seen for months. AM2 X2 is good on some modells, especially 512KB parts, 1MB parts practical non-existant yet, 5000+ nothing yet. So either demand isn't that great and/or AMD has produced more (think of FAB36!). Edit2: All (analysts) seem to speak about the market in general and mostly come up with conclusions from Intel comments. So when Intel is short, AMD has to be short too ... So when the market is down e.g. 300Mio. more than expected, why couldn't it be -400Mio. for Intel and +100Mio. for AMD? I'm not saying its that very likely, but who knows and the press is heavily one-sided. BUGGI

To: combjelly who wrote (201632)	6/12/2006 7:32:45 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

This article suggests that rev G: 1- Will at first be produced using 65nm using enhanced SiGe based strain 2- Increases IPC: For it's 65nm design AMD had several choices. ... The final choice would be to transition those extra transistors in those redundant stages into more useful units, and increase IPC all the while keeping clockspeed in the same general area that current 90 nm processors enjoy, all the while shrinking the die size to more manageable levels. This final choice appears to be what AMD has in mind. 3- (Not relevant for my point but still nice to see: In late Spring of 2007 we will see the first dual core K8L processors introduced, i.e. rev H. This article is done by a author unknown to me, Joshua Walrath. He any good?) theinquirer.net My point is that when combined with the die photo of the non production ready 65nm that has in all likelyhood been shown twice now might mean that rev G is not a dumb shrink. That non production ready chip might simply have been a precursor for rev G. Does anyone know what ZRAM looks like on a die photo? I was not expecting it so soon, but can't imagine anything else in that purple area than L3 cache. This unknown author bothers me. This whole train of thought might very well not be worth a penny. Regards, Rink