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 (228558)	3/20/2007 4:25:54 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Sarmad: Intel was two or three speed grades behind with their initial 65nm production wrt 90nm. In fact, 65nm P4s never got to the speed their 90nm counterparts did. As far as size goes, AMD has more revenue wrt Intel than at any time in the recent past. Why don't you ask Intel why they are a shadow of their former selves? Pete

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (228558)	3/20/2007 7:02:29 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Sarmad, Otellini claimed that SOI adds thermal resistance, leading to unreliability and forcing lower frequencies and performance. Well, check out the power graphs near the end of Anand's review here: anandtech.com Especially at idle (remember Pete's "substrate leakage") or at full load, the AMD system has lower power consumption despite higher performance in the benchmarks and higher CPU frequency, completely destroying Otellini's arguments. These are 90nm CPU chips, but Anand reported that the 65nm chips are even more power efficient. If the chip itself uses 10% less power, then a 1% thermal resistance differnce (i'm being generous) -- is immaterial. Petz