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: dougSF30 who wrote (219139)	12/5/2006 7:18:17 PM
From: Rink	Respond to of 275872

Jspeed, Doug, can you PLEASE give it a rest now. Intel has good characteristics for their 65nm process the main one which is being a year early, and AMD has good characteristics for their 65nm process as well including thinner gate oxide, little bit more innovative strain (Intel doesn't use DSL afaik), and SOI. How I read it AMD won the award because they looked at the technology itself (and AMD's 65nm is simply more advanced than Intel's), and didn't give points at all for the fact that Intel was a year earlier. Last year same time Intel should have won it (AMD was still nowhere near 65nm). Hope that's ok for the both of you. I think the rest lost complete interest in who's right or wrong here. Too many darn posts. Move on to new subjects. Regards, Rink

To: dougSF30 who wrote (219139)	12/5/2006 7:20:51 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: And I'll take the fact that you continue to ignore the issue of an apparent 125mm^2 die size to mean you are in denial, clinging to PR fluff in the face of: The 125mm^2 issue is pretty easy to ignore for now because: 1) The only source so far is an undisclosed individual at The Inquirer, so it may or may not be accurate. 2) It may say more about the architecture than the process. 3) You could always hope that it is a 1MBx2 part with half the cache disabled. :) no review part sent out Same with Winchester - 90nm SOI turned out fine after all apparent 68% shrink factor Maybe, maybe not. 400 MHz speed deficit compared to 90nm Same as 2.2GHz 90-nm Winchester compared to 2.6GHz 130-nm FX-55 no parts for consumer market until Q107 AMD can't even deliver 90-nm parts to everyone now. No sense trying to promise 65-nm to everyone when there is no chance of delivering. Q207 until a 200MHz speed bump It took six months to go from 2.2GHz 90-nm Winchester to a faster 90-nm Venice. top speed of 2.5GHz for a 120W Barcelona Disappointing just because earlier rumors claimed it would be 2.7-2.9GHz. The frequency is not surprising given where AMD's 90-nm and 65-nm dual-core CPUs are today.