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 (228838)	3/26/2007 11:39:42 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

syh, 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. The amount of additional power drawn by cache is minimal (compared to the rest of the CPU). 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. That's for sure. The power consumption reductions (of 65nm vs. 90nm AMD CPUs) seem to be ok on lower clock speeds (if you look at the low power states in the data sheets) but they seem to diminish at higher clock speeds, and there are no additional bins that 65nm has brought. Even 5000 has not become widely available. So the question right now is that if it is just Brisbane that is FUBARed or if it is the 65nm process. Well, niether one is good but bad 65nm process would mean bad things for Barcelona as well. Joe