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 (220175)	12/12/2006 3:42:13 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>> But since you and other fans don't, here's your big chance to prove me wrong! Proving you wrong would be a bonus. But, what they really want is for you to be banned from the thread before AMD analyst meeting.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (220175)	12/13/2006 7:46:39 AM
From: jspeed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Doug, I have some competitive analysis from one of my suppliers (not AMD or IBM, but another major semiconductor manufacturer) on Intel's projected 45nm performance. Basically it contradicts the numbers given by alan81 (read: they said it would not be that good). Supposedly the limiting factor was Intel's use of bulk silicon. I'm very interested to see who's wrong. Again I note that I've been unable to find a published peer-reviewed paper detailing Intel's 45 nm device characteristics. I could be just missing it, but if none exists I find that highly unusual.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (220175)	12/13/2006 8:06:20 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I think you're right. The 125mm^2 Brisbane die size number isn't sufficiently challenged to discount it as a major possibility. 1. Remember the example where Hans calculated that an ideal shrink would be close to 115mm^2. 125mm^2 is actually pretty close to that ideal. Message 23080000 2. It fits with the Inq article too. theinquirer.net 3. Lastly there's really little info available that says otherwise. Based on Hans' remarks above it might well turn out that the only mistake you made related to the above is calling AMD's 65nm process 'bad' because Brisbane didn't shrink as some including the both of us expected. Separately I have also seen references to 2.7-2.9GHz for QC high end desktop in Q3 (Altair). From these two sources: - HKEPC: Message 22877620 - Inq: theinquirer.net To me it looks like you might be wrong here as well with regards to no higher frequencies for QC than 2.5GHz in Q3. Not entirely sure. All I'm saying is that neither you nor I can discount either possibility because of lack of sufficient data. Regards, Rink