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: Joe NYC who wrote (228831)	3/24/2007 7:11:27 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> Well, to the extend of binning. Looking at parameters of the 65nm chips (as far as power consumption), it is better than 90nm process. I think that is a good metric for measurement. How did AMD's shrink compare in power reduction to Intel Pentium going from 90 nm to 65 ? (The D8xx to D9xx ?) I'll look it up.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (228831)	3/24/2007 8:10:36 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> Looking at parameters of the 65nm chips (as far as power consumption), it is better than 90nm process. Intel's power reduction for D830 compared to D930 was 130 Watt to 95. With adding 2 MB to the D930 cache. Surprisingly, the 95 W is listed for up to the D960 at 3.6 GHz. I believe AMD's was 89 W to 65, while keeping cache the same, and unable to get up to upper several speed bins. Whereas Intel missed only one bin. So AMD definitely did not get as much benefit from the 90nm->65nm transition, as Intel did. Even for the (so far) limited set of products that it was able to transition.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (228831)	3/24/2007 9:22:53 PM
From: golfbum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

i think it's safe to say at this point that amd's "partnership" with ibm on process development has not worked as well as they'd like. the big announcement back a couple of years ago was that they'd be fully aligned at 65nm and they would get some help on 90nm. as far as i can tell 90nm was eventually a "meets" after several iterations and 65nm is a "corrective action required." left to be seen on 45nm but since ibm has yet to demo a working 45nm chip i'll venture a guess that "the joint 45nm process" will never see significant use at amd before they radically change their business plan. gb