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 (228942)	3/26/2007 12:50:13 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Respond to of 275872

edit. I see you covered this already. I'll leave it posted anyhow. >> I have not researched that. Interesting question, BTW. I did, and posted what I found. Intel went from 130 Watt to 95 Watt (with adding 2 MB cache). These are D8xx to D9xx parts. All the bins were covered, except extreme. AMD either got nothing. As in they had 65 Watt parts in 90 nm, and did not get any drop in power. But it could be that those 90 nm low power parts were not really in the design, but only tested that way due to random variation in the atoms when they were made. Neolib can explain. Or AMD went from 95 Watt in 90 nm to 65 Watt in 65 nm, with no increase in cache, and missing several high speed bins. My conclusion is Intel got more benefit from their shrink than AMD did. But as CJ managed to politely say, it ain't over yet.