Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Samples 45nm Penryn Microprocessors.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 27, 2006 10:29:02 PM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061127154338...

Quote:
Intel’s sampling of the code-named Penryn processor at 45nm fabrication process occurs amid the company’s arch-rival Advanced Micro Devices still have not announced a single processor made using 65nm fabrication process, which is used to manufacture the majority of Intel’s central processing units (CPUs) these days. According to the director of Intel, the company is on-track to produce Penryn in volumes and ship them to customers in the second half of 2007.
November 27, 2006 10:56:44 PM

Quote:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061127154338...

Intel’s sampling of the code-named Penryn processor at 45nm fabrication process occurs amid the company’s arch-rival Advanced Micro Devices still have not announced a single processor made using 65nm fabrication process, which is used to manufacture the majority of Intel’s central processing units (CPUs) these days. According to the director of Intel, the company is on-track to produce Penryn in volumes and ship them to customers in the second half of 2007.


Word, Playa.
November 27, 2006 11:18:59 PM

Quote:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061127154338...

Intel’s sampling of the code-named Penryn processor at 45nm fabrication process occurs amid the company’s arch-rival Advanced Micro Devices still have not announced a single processor made using 65nm fabrication process, which is used to manufacture the majority of Intel’s central processing units (CPUs) these days. According to the director of Intel, the company is on-track to produce Penryn in volumes and ship them to customers in the second half of 2007.


FUD, FUD, FUD. AMDs 65nm chips will be released on Dec 5(two weeks from now) according to DigiTimes. They are about 6-12 months behind on process shrinks with 1/5 of the market and maybe even revenue. That's not too bad. They even KEPT the crown through 3 Intel 65nm Revs - AT LEAST. That means that Barcelona will be a force to be reckoned with- especially with HT3 and DDR1066(1066 is supported and it will be there for launch more than likely).

There are and will be two CPU manufs. The speed crown will probably shift just like nVidia/ATi. 100fps is 100fps. Get used to it.
Related resources
November 27, 2006 11:30:25 PM

Quote:
...Typically, thinner manufacturing process may allow Intel to crank up clock-speed of the chips, enlarge its cache sizes, reduce power consumption...

I’ve already read around that Penryn/Wolfdale would be shipped with a 50% larger cache, although this has not been confirmed.
November 27, 2006 11:31:15 PM

November 27, 2006 11:45:16 PM

Wrong topic buddy :lol: 
November 28, 2006 12:02:22 AM

Quote:

FUD, FUD, FUD. AMDs 65nm chips will be released on Dec 5(two weeks from now) according to DigiTimes.


If they are going to release it 2 weeks from now, where are the benchmarks? There should be a few ES chips around at least.

I hope you´re right though. Because if they don´t get it done soon, intel will ruin AMD since they can offer 45nm chips dirt cheap.
November 28, 2006 12:11:27 AM

Awesome news! :D 
November 28, 2006 12:20:45 AM

Quote:
There should be a few ES chips around at least.

1Q '07 would be my guess.
I havent kept a close watch on AMD but theres definitely nothing to be released in a few weeks.
November 28, 2006 12:21:51 AM

Baron you need to read your roadmap, that you posted. 4x4 is 90 nm not 65 and AMD 65nm won't be out till next year. According to your roadmap that you poisted.


R Collins
November 28, 2006 12:43:44 AM

Quote:

FUD, FUD, FUD. AMDs 65nm chips will be released on Dec 5(two weeks from now) according to DigiTimes.


If they are going to release it 2 weeks from now, where are the benchmarks? There should be a few ES chips around at least.

I hope you´re right though. Because if they don´t get it done soon, intel will ruin AMD since they can offer 45nm chips dirt cheap.


They are the same chips 100MHz higher per SKU. 4200+ is 2.3, 4600+ is 2.5, 5000+ is 2.7GHz. Intel 45nm will not be a main % of their inventory until sometime in 2008 since there are plenty of 65nm chips left and more will be made before 45nm comes around. Until then AMD can make 3-4X the amount of chips per wafer. The price war is over.
November 28, 2006 12:47:32 AM

Quote:
Baron you need to read your roadmap, that you posted. 4x4 is 90 nm not 65 and AMD 65nm won't be out till next year. According to your roadmap that you poisted.


R Collins



Not another one. If you look closely at the graph X2 65nm is due before 07 while the Sempron/single core are due around Jan. Reputable sources say that Dec 5 is the day that X2 65nm debuts. That's before 07. And on schedule.
November 28, 2006 12:47:40 AM

If AMD could make 3 times as many chips as they can make now, then the price war would really speed up. AMD could sell chips for a lot less than they do now and still make a profit.

You have to admit its a little weird that there are no ES around or any benchmarks or at least semi-believable leaks. :?
November 28, 2006 12:50:52 AM

Quote:

1Q '07 would be my guess.
I havent kept a close watch on AMD but theres definitely nothing to be released in a few weeks.


Based on the lack of rumors, i tend to agree. At least some taiwan based motherboard manufacturer would have leaked something about motherboard compatibility or a new bios revision. There has always been that kind of leaks before a transition to a new nm size. 8O
November 28, 2006 12:58:04 AM

Quote:
If AMD could make 3 times as many chips as they can make now, then the price war would really speed up. AMD could sell chips for a lot less than they do now and still make a profit.

You have to admit its a little weird that there are now ES around or any benchmarks or at least semi-believable leaks. :?


AMD never has a lot of ES floating around and it's the same chip just at 65nm. Look at a current AM2 4800+ and 5000+ and the new model 4800+ will be right between them. They may actually get a few more % because the new divider will make "closer to DDR2 800" ratios - especially for the 5000+. 800 will run at 770MHZ instead of 742. Not much but may provide slight improvement.

But then 65nm just gives AMD more chips to sell at a lower price. EVeryone admits that Dell sucked up a large amount and I would guess they sold them all since they do "made-to-order."

If AMD really gets 50% 65nm by Q2, they will have three times the amount of chips at the "same" cost to manufacture.
November 28, 2006 1:00:11 AM

Quote:
There should be a few ES chips around at least.

1Q '07 would be my guess.
I havent kept a close watch on AMD but theres definitely nothing to be released in a few weeks.

Then you admit that are being biased in saying that they can't keep ANY schedule? They have said they would release in Q4, and even DigiTimes is quoted as saying Dec 5.

I hope they have at least 2 million ready. That would shut up the naysayers.
November 28, 2006 1:05:57 AM

Yorkfield XE ey, This thing is gonna be a nuclear weapon sounds spectaculer, but my question is what's with the 2x6mb cache? Isn't intel supposed to be moving to REAL quad core (i.e 4x* mb cache) instead of two Dual cores on single die by then? To me 2x6mb cache implies it will be the same as the kentsfield with two conroe chips on the same shard of metal just 45nm and more cache.... can someone explain this?
November 28, 2006 1:08:42 AM

I think you´re right about the ES part. Intel is the one throwing the ES chips around. Still, i´m a little skeptical. It would make sense to release the chips before chrismas, but there are just not enough signs that would really indicate a launch in 2 weeks. Heck, maybe i read a benchmark about the new CPU tomorrow, but right now, i just can´t see how.
Don´t get me wrong though, as i said, i really hope they get their 65nm parts ready to earn some money. I think this can´t be settled by words - we´ll have to see if AMD rolls out its new line on dec. 5 or not.
a c 99 à CPUs
November 28, 2006 1:55:45 AM

I second that. I don't think I heard of really anybody besides a *few* tech sites having ESes of AMD chips, going back to the original K8 Hammers. Almost no 90nm Winchester A64 or X2 ESes out there, same for the AM2 CPUs. But everybody and his brother had ESes of Intel CPUs, especially the Core 2-based CPUs.

I think that AMD is just naturally very tight-lipped and run a tight ship as far as keeping things under wraps until ready. And rightly so, for two reasons: one is that if they don't hit it off perfectly, they can invisibly wait until it is right and few would really notice. I heard that the first Opteron engineering samples were very poor CPUs and didn't run at more than 1 GHz- if AMD had put a lot of those out in the wild, that would be terrible publicity for them and would make a lot of people leery about buying a finished (and excellent) K8. And if the ESes were world-beaters...just look back at Intel's cash hemorrhaging earlier this year after they flooded the market with ESes of Conroes and made their multi-billion-dollar inventory of NetBurst CPUs virtually unsalable.

AMD isn't doing nothing, nor are they stupid. They want to sell every chip that they make for a decent price, and in fact, they are doing a little too well at that as they have more orders than they can fill at the moment. Playing smart is how they were able to survive as the much smaller competitor in the x86 CPU market and even take away a fair chunk of Intel's market share. Sunnyvale's behavior is not necessarily good for tech journalism or good to build up hype in the community, but it seems to have worked very well for them and they're sticking to it. I know if I were in Hector Ruiz's shoes, I'd do the same thing. [/i]
November 28, 2006 2:28:15 AM

dude baron....stop being a freaking amd fanboy


INTEL FOR LIFE
November 28, 2006 3:08:31 AM

Quote:
dude baron....stop being a freaking amd fanboy


INTEL FOR LIFE


:roll:

so he says
November 28, 2006 1:37:45 PM

Quote:
I second that. I don't think I heard of really anybody besides a *few* tech sites having ESes of AMD chips, going back to the original K8 Hammers. Almost no 90nm Winchester A64 or X2 ESes out there, same for the AM2 CPUs. But everybody and his brother had ESes of Intel CPUs, especially the Core 2-based CPUs.

I think that AMD is just naturally very tight-lipped and run a tight ship as far as keeping things under wraps until ready. And rightly so, for two reasons: one is that if they don't hit it off perfectly, they can invisibly wait until it is right and few would really notice. I heard that the first Opteron engineering samples were very poor CPUs and didn't run at more than 1 GHz- if AMD had put a lot of those out in the wild, that would be terrible publicity for them and would make a lot of people leery about buying a finished (and excellent) K8. And if the ESes were world-beaters...just look back at Intel's cash hemorrhaging earlier this year after they flooded the market with ESes of Conroes and made their multi-billion-dollar inventory of NetBurst CPUs virtually unsalable.

AMD isn't doing nothing, nor are they stupid. They want to sell every chip that they make for a decent price, and in fact, they are doing a little too well at that as they have more orders than they can fill at the moment. Playing smart is how they were able to survive as the much smaller competitor in the x86 CPU market and even take away a fair chunk of Intel's market share. Sunnyvale's behavior is not necessarily good for tech journalism or good to build up hype in the community, but it seems to have worked very well for them and they're sticking to it. I know if I were in Hector Ruiz's shoes, I'd do the same thing.
[/i]

Agree with you :wink:
November 28, 2006 2:07:07 PM

Quote:
dude baron....stop being a freaking amd fanboy


INTEL FOR LIFE


Could you please explain what you are trying to say? I mean, i can live with miserable punctuation, but this post lacks any coherence. And what is INTEL FOR LIFE? Prescott for life? Is that the computer enthusiasts version of a fiery hell? What did i do to deserve a fate like that? Am i missing something? :?:
And why is that word fanboy showing its ugly head here? I think that word gets used way too much. It´s almost like the end it all nazi-comparison. 8O
November 28, 2006 3:28:56 PM

Quote:

FUD, FUD, FUD. AMDs 65nm chips will be released on Dec 5(two weeks from now) according to DigiTimes. They are about 6-12 months behind on process shrinks with 1/5 of the market and maybe even revenue. That's not too bad. They even KEPT the crown through 3 Intel 65nm Revs - AT LEAST. That means that Barcelona will be a force to be reckoned with- especially with HT3 and DDR1066(1066 is supported and it will be there for launch more than likely).

There are and will be two CPU manufs. The speed crown will probably shift just like nVidia/ATi. 100fps is 100fps. Get used to it.


Don't you mean, they'll be paper launching on Dec 5? :D 

We are in a state where AMD has everything to lose by not leaking news of Conroe competition (can we all stop saying Conroe killer? - AMD can worry about a Conroe killer after they get something that first competes). So logically, we can only draw 3 conclusions

A.) AMD has no 65nm parts working yet
B.) AMD has 65nm parts, but they aren't performing like AMD wants
C.) AMD enjoys losing PR and contracts due to being seen as the inferior chip maker and will surprise us all with something they've been hiding.

Which do you think is the most likely scenario? My personal opinion here (dating back to the pentium 2 days), but it seems like AMD has been more of the release news early company. How far in advance did we hear about the hammer?

Your post sounded desperate. Not trying to flame, just making an observation. I'm sure AMD will come out with something good soon (it's been too long for them not to, unless they're having serious problems), I just doubt it will be as soon as you think. I believe they're converting to new tech inline while running old (due to factory limited space). That has to be an incredibly difficult operation and I'm sure it's hampering cycle time. I think Intel hasn't even done that - they just build another factory :-)
a c 99 à CPUs
November 28, 2006 3:54:27 PM

AMD is currently capacity constrained due to the fab transition issue that you speak of. They just bought ATi and are paying for that fab too. The last thing they need is to have their sell-'em-as-fast-as-we're-making-'em situation messed up as that would send them into the red faster than a group of girls turned loose in a mall with their daddies' credit cards. Leaking news of a much-improved CPU just over the horizon certainly did that for Intel and AMD isn't nearly as capable to weather that kind of a shock as Intel was. So they would rather make money while "losing PR and being seen as the inferior chip maker" rather than hemorrhaging cash but being seen as the future top dog.

And as far as if they have 65nm parts and if they are working up to specs, nobody outside of Sunnyvale or Dresden really knows for sure and AMD's lawyers probably have a 12-gauge pointed at the heads of the ODMs and such that might also know, at least until AMD wants to lift the NDA. My guess is that they have 65nm working well as they did show off a few 65nm wafers- they showed off a 65nm quad-core Barcelona wafer for crying out loud. The 65nm parts probably are working just fine as AMD has not said word one about any delays in shipping the CPUs. They are just making a ton of chips and my guess is that they are diverting some 90nm capacity to make enough 65nm parts to fill the channel on launch day. That's why some parts that are higher-end (X2 3800 EE SFF, 5000+, 5200+) are hard to get- the better machines are 65nm now and making 65nm parts. That's just my guess and we'll not know for sure until AMD decides to show one off.

EDIT: The Hammer was the first chip for a new ISA. AMD *needed* to get the news out early as they wanted the industry to try to adopt AMD64 rather than Itanium IA64 as the 64-bit platform of choice. If AMD wouldn't have gotten anything about Hammer out before launch date, I bet that Intel would have tried very hard in getting Itanium onto the desktop as neither arch would have had any programs for it yet. Intel sort of blew off the chip while AMD was hard at work getting software support for it. If the chip came out suddenly and people saw how good it was, no doubt Intel would have knee-jerked as they could have had a chance for it to work.
November 28, 2006 6:23:02 PM

Quote:
(...) Playing smart is how they were able to survive as the much smaller competitor in the x86 CPU market and even take away a fair chunk of Intel's market share. Sunnyvale's behavior is not necessarily good for tech journalism or good to build up hype in the community, but it seems to have worked very well for them and they're sticking to it. I know if I were in Hector Ruiz's shoes, I'd do the same thing.


Agree.
The core issue (pardon the pun) is, mostly, within the process, architecture & manufacturing realm of possibilities; it's unlikely that AMD will come out with something revolutionary (by this, I mean an overwhelming, killer end-product) and, time is [heavily] running against its release delay.
It's, obviously, better to stay mute than to word out something not worthy of the expectations; but, it's also a bad take to stay mute when a product is so close to [the pretense] launch; Engineering Samples are a must, when there's confidence on what the product will deliver; and, I hardly believe the role of testing & advertising it will be conceded to Dell or Gateway, under some NDA.
Also mind that, the Hammer became so successful, not only because it was a 'new' & very good architecture but, mostly, because Intel chose to turn to NetBurst; this is even more true when SOI vs bulk Si is taken into the equation...

My opinion.


Cheers!
November 28, 2006 11:09:00 PM

Quote:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061127154338...

Intel’s sampling of the code-named Penryn processor at 45nm fabrication process occurs amid the company’s arch-rival Advanced Micro Devices still have not announced a single processor made using 65nm fabrication process, which is used to manufacture the majority of Intel’s central processing units (CPUs) these days. According to the director of Intel, the company is on-track to produce Penryn in volumes and ship them to customers in the second half of 2007.


FUD, FUD, FUD. AMDs 65nm chips will be released on Dec 5(two weeks from now) according to DigiTimes. They are about 6-12 months behind on process shrinks with 1/5 of the market and maybe even revenue. That's not too bad. They even KEPT the crown through 3 Intel 65nm Revs - AT LEAST. That means that Barcelona will be a force to be reckoned with- especially with HT3 and DDR1066(1066 is supported and it will be there for launch more than likely).

There are and will be two CPU manufs. The speed crown will probably shift just like nVidia/ATi. 100fps is 100fps. Get used to it.

They are over a year behind the process shift actually and they held the crown for 3 years of Netburst being the flagship uArch.
November 28, 2006 11:51:00 PM

Quote:
If AMD could make 3 times as many chips as they can make now, then the price war would really speed up. AMD could sell chips for a lot less than they do now and still make a profit.

You have to admit its a little weird that there are now ES around or any benchmarks or at least semi-believable leaks. :?


AMD never has a lot of ES floating around and it's the same chip just at 65nm. Look at a current AM2 4800+ and 5000+ and the new model 4800+ will be right between them. They may actually get a few more % because the new divider will make "closer to DDR2 800" ratios - especially for the 5000+. 800 will run at 770MHZ instead of 742. Not much but may provide slight improvement.

But then 65nm just gives AMD more chips to sell at a lower price. EVeryone admits that Dell sucked up a large amount and I would guess they sold them all since they do "made-to-order."

If AMD really gets 50% 65nm by Q2, they will have three times the amount of chips at the "same" cost to manufacture.

Not true at AMD yields are so low it will atually cost them more per CPU until they get the bugs worked out.
November 29, 2006 4:10:35 AM

Quote:

FUD, FUD, FUD. AMDs 65nm chips will be released on Dec 5(two weeks from now) according to DigiTimes.


If they are going to release it 2 weeks from now, where are the benchmarks? There should be a few ES chips around at least.

I hope you´re right though. Because if they don´t get it done soon, intel will ruin AMD since they can offer 45nm chips dirt cheap.
Amd isn't like intel in the benchmarking sense, they don't get their chips out there months in advance, not even weeks for benchmarking. I don't mean this because the performance isn't good enough, it's just that's what AMD does. You hear about Core 2 duo 6 months before any release, but that's not really the AMD way. I don't mean if offensively, it's just the way it is.

As far as cache is concerned for the Penryn cores...
"The basics are the same as the current core, it is just tweaked. The big thing is that cache will be upped to 6MB from 4, basically they will be catching up to AMD here (Note: I am going to get phone calls over that one...). " -The Inquirer
The rest of the article is here about the Penryn core and you can read why Intel is catching up with AMD (although aren't there itanium's or xeons out with 16mb cache?):
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36010

And the Inquirer is siting Q4'07 for release but real volume in Q1'08 because a lot of changes have to come through. NO PLANS FOR 1600 Mhz fsb by the way...

Also, as far as AMD's process shrink and 65, 45 nm is concerned, AMD said that the transition from 65 nm to 45 nm will take 18 months where process shrinks usually take two years, in order to try and compete better with intel, because AMD recognizes the significance of the lithography size in order to compete better with Intel.
November 29, 2006 4:20:33 AM

Quote:
If AMD could make 3 times as many chips as they can make now, then the price war would really speed up. AMD could sell chips for a lot less than they do now and still make a profit.

You have to admit its a little weird that there are now ES around or any benchmarks or at least semi-believable leaks. :?


AMD never has a lot of ES floating around and it's the same chip just at 65nm. Look at a current AM2 4800+ and 5000+ and the new model 4800+ will be right between them. They may actually get a few more % because the new divider will make "closer to DDR2 800" ratios - especially for the 5000+. 800 will run at 770MHZ instead of 742. Not much but may provide slight improvement.

But then 65nm just gives AMD more chips to sell at a lower price. EVeryone admits that Dell sucked up a large amount and I would guess they sold them all since they do "made-to-order."

If AMD really gets 50% 65nm by Q2, they will have three times the amount of chips at the "same" cost to manufacture.

Not true at AMD yields are so low it will atually cost them more per CPU until they get the bugs worked out.
You should look into manufacturing processes more closely because the AMD manufacturing process allows AMD to achieve better yields than Intel, and when everyone says AMD's yields are crap I have trouble listening to anything they say. Look into the APM, it's the process that AMD has patented and is in version 3.0 for Fab 36. Automated Precision Manufacturing
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34781
It's a process when AMD is cooking up it's silicon in the oven's of Fab 36 (not literally) and a change can be made in say step 5 of the process that increases yield of that type of chip. Now every chip that is currently in step 1, 2, 3, and 4 will have better yields along with future chips. It's a system that can become amazingly efficient. AMD loans the process out to Chartered Semiconductor...

Unfortunately I am not sure if the same process can be used on Intel chips because they do not use SOI. But don't quote me on that.
November 29, 2006 4:29:22 AM

Quote:
You should look into manufacturing processes more closely because the AMD manufacturing process allows AMD to achieve better yields than Intel, and when everyone says AMD's yields are crap I have trouble listening to anything they say. Look into the APM, it's the process that AMD has patented and is in version 3.0 for Fab 36. Automated Precision Manufacturing
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34781
It's a process when AMD is cooking up it's silicon in the oven's of Fab 36 (not literally) and a change can be made in say step 5 of the process that increases yield of that type of chip. Now every chip that is currently in step 1, 2, 3, and 4 will have better yields along with future chips. It's a system that can become amazingly efficient. AMD loans the process out to Chartered Semiconductor...

Unfortunately I am not sure if the same process can be used on Intel chips because they do not use SOI. But don't quote me on that.

Are you an insider? Since yield information is definitely a trade secret.
When transitioning to the next smaller node, yields will be crap. Thus, as AMD is transitioning to 65nm, their yields will be crap for a while.
I don't think SOI has anything to do with being able to use "APM" or not.
November 29, 2006 4:39:48 AM

I shouldn't have used better and merely, comparable :oops: 
November 29, 2006 4:41:06 AM

Quote:
If AMD could make 3 times as many chips as they can make now, then the price war would really speed up. AMD could sell chips for a lot less than they do now and still make a profit.

You have to admit its a little weird that there are now ES around or any benchmarks or at least semi-believable leaks. :?


AMD never has a lot of ES floating around and it's the same chip just at 65nm. Look at a current AM2 4800+ and 5000+ and the new model 4800+ will be right between them. They may actually get a few more % because the new divider will make "closer to DDR2 800" ratios - especially for the 5000+. 800 will run at 770MHZ instead of 742. Not much but may provide slight improvement.

But then 65nm just gives AMD more chips to sell at a lower price. EVeryone admits that Dell sucked up a large amount and I would guess they sold them all since they do "made-to-order."

If AMD really gets 50% 65nm by Q2, they will have three times the amount of chips at the "same" cost to manufacture.

Not true at AMD yields are so low it will atually cost them more per CPU until they get the bugs worked out.
You should look into manufacturing processes more closely because the AMD manufacturing process allows AMD to achieve better yields than Intel, and when everyone says AMD's yields are crap I have trouble listening to anything they say. Look into the APM, it's the process that AMD has patented and is in version 3.0 for Fab 36. Automated Precision Manufacturing
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34781
It's a process when AMD is cooking up it's silicon in the oven's of Fab 36 (not literally) and a change can be made in say step 5 of the process that increases yield of that type of chip. Now every chip that is currently in step 1, 2, 3, and 4 will have better yields along with future chips. It's a system that can become amazingly efficient. AMD loans the process out to Chartered Semiconductor...

Unfortunately I am not sure if the same process can be used on Intel chips because they do not use SOI. But don't quote me on that.Another BM in the making here?
November 29, 2006 4:57:07 AM

Quote:
no he admitted bieng wrong :wink:
I was referring to the "don't quote me on that" part. This guy seems to be talking like a know it all, but provides nothing to back him up. This paired up with his other threads.... looks all too familiar.

Quote:
I'm sorry about not being able to find the article, at the present moment I cannot look


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/AMD-approach-ft...
November 29, 2006 5:06:21 AM

Well I just keep reading people posting comments on news topics saying AMD has no yields when compared to the almighty Intel, but it struck me that this may be because people don't understand yields. Correct me if I am wrong but yield is the percent of usable and functioning dies that come off of one wafer of silicon. So while Intel certainly manufactures more chips than AMD, that doesn't mean that their yields are any different/better.
November 29, 2006 8:16:42 AM

Quote:
AMD is currently capacity constrained due to the fab transition issue that you speak of. They just bought ATi and are paying for that fab too. The last thing they need is to have their sell-'em-as-fast-as-we're-making-'em situation messed up as that would send them into the red faster than a group of girls turned loose in a mall with their daddies' credit cards. Leaking news of a much-improved CPU just over the horizon certainly did that for Intel and AMD isn't nearly as capable to weather that kind of a shock as Intel was. So they would rather make money while "losing PR and being seen as the inferior chip maker" rather than hemorrhaging cash but being seen as the future top dog.

And as far as if they have 65nm parts and if they are working up to specs, nobody outside of Sunnyvale or Dresden really knows for sure and AMD's lawyers probably have a 12-gauge pointed at the heads of the ODMs and such that might also know, at least until AMD wants to lift the NDA. My guess is that they have 65nm working well as they did show off a few 65nm wafers- they showed off a 65nm quad-core Barcelona wafer for crying out loud. The 65nm parts probably are working just fine as AMD has not said word one about any delays in shipping the CPUs. They are just making a ton of chips and my guess is that they are diverting some 90nm capacity to make enough 65nm parts to fill the channel on launch day. That's why some parts that are higher-end (X2 3800 EE SFF, 5000+, 5200+) are hard to get- the better machines are 65nm now and making 65nm parts. That's just my guess and we'll not know for sure until AMD decides to show one off.

EDIT: The Hammer was the first chip for a new ISA. AMD *needed* to get the news out early as they wanted the industry to try to adopt AMD64 rather than Itanium IA64 as the 64-bit platform of choice. If AMD wouldn't have gotten anything about Hammer out before launch date, I bet that Intel would have tried very hard in getting Itanium onto the desktop as neither arch would have had any programs for it yet. Intel sort of blew off the chip while AMD was hard at work getting software support for it. If the chip came out suddenly and people saw how good it was, no doubt Intel would have knee-jerked as they could have had a chance for it to work.


Excellent point and I agree with you for the most part. However, I think that AMD has now passed the point where they would lose sales from people holding out for the new chip. It seems that they are now losing sales to the people who have lost faith in them actually surpassing C2D. If they were truely going to launch on the 5th, they should have shown something already to stem the tide of people jumping to Intel.

That is just my opinion.
November 29, 2006 9:27:16 AM

Quote:
Amd isn't like intel in the benchmarking sense, they don't get their chips out there months in advance, not even weeks for benchmarking. I don't mean this because the performance isn't good enough, it's just that's what AMD does. You hear about Core 2 duo 6 months before any release, but that's not really the AMD way. I don't mean if offensively, it's just the way it is.


I think i already admitted this to BaronMatrix in another thread (or was it this one?), but yes, you´re right. Intel is the one with the plenty-ES-chip history. Except for the launch of their 64bit processor AMD always has been the quiet one.
November 29, 2006 4:07:52 PM

Quote:
Well I just keep reading people posting comments on news topics saying AMD has no yields when compared to the almighty Intel, but it struck me that this may be because people don't understand yields. Correct me if I am wrong but yield is the percent of usable and functioning dies that come off of one wafer of silicon. So while Intel certainly manufactures more chips than AMD, that doesn't mean that their yields are any different/better.


I'll only speak for myself (although I believe 'everyone' here has gone through a similar route...), on what concerns quoting the Inq. & equivalent news' sites; I had to learn how to filter random information, collect relevant data & backup my own claims on every subjet (it doesn't matter the brands...); I'm still learning (a lot!) & I still make mistakes.
You're new in this forum and in these [CPU] matters, so it seems, but you've already shown interest in learning... with humility.
Be welcome.


Cheers!
November 29, 2006 4:09:39 PM

Quote:
(...) Intel is the one with the plenty-ES-chip history. Except for the launch of their 64bit processor AMD always has been the quiet one.


That's symptomatic, now is it not?! :wink:


Cheers!
November 29, 2006 4:53:52 PM

Either A or B but i hope they have conroe killer and the 65 nm processor.
I want Amd to get something good so intel is forced to give me their products cheaper. just imagine amd going out of buisness.......
November 29, 2006 7:28:07 PM

Quote:
(...) Intel is the one with the plenty-ES-chip history. Except for the launch of their 64bit processor AMD always has been the quiet one.


That's symptomatic, now is it not?! :wink:


Cheers!

:lol:  but they've never been this quiet 6 days from launch,rather reorted launch.either they are having serious problems or there is absolutely nothing to pre examine in terms of performance ,or the date will quietly be moved back a few weeks.
I think it could be fair to say that we know as much about the launch date as AMD does, and so maybe that's why no benches are showing up. Also these will be clocked mid range, and aren't going to be any conroe killer, they are just a shrunk x2..., athlon, etc.
November 29, 2006 8:13:22 PM

Quote:
(...) Intel is the one with the plenty-ES-chip history. Except for the launch of their 64bit processor AMD always has been the quiet one.


That's symptomatic, now is it not?! :wink:


Cheers!

You just put a torch to my hopes. :evil: 

:lol: 
November 29, 2006 8:33:21 PM

Quote:
:lol:  but they've never been this quiet 6 days from launch (...).


:lol: 

True, true!
Sounds like a 'countdown in your kitchen' and then the whole block blows up...

More seriously (but not entirely, mind you), I do believe AMD is going to produce a new processor, at a new transistor node.

Even more seriously, that'll probably be @ 65nm... dual-core.

Darn seriously, ... soon (the 'block buster'; so much for silence, anyway!).


Cheers!
November 29, 2006 8:50:35 PM

Quote:
I think it could be fair to say that we know as much about the launch date as AMD does, and so maybe that's why no benches are showing up. Also these will be clocked mid range, and aren't going to be any conroe killer, they are just a shrunk x2..., athlon, etc.


Nah, AMD surely has it more twisted than anyone else, but only from the inside out (WTM); I agree AMD's not going to kill anyone, with its next release. IMO, that's one of the reasons ESs are not out, yet. They [must] know what they're doing; and, it wouldn't be healthy at all, to come out knocking your chest off with something not worthwhile; AMD'll have to do it, whenever they find they can hit hard, in the computing arena.


Cheers!
November 29, 2006 8:51:59 PM

Quote:
(...) Intel is the one with the plenty-ES-chip history. Except for the launch of their 64bit processor AMD always has been the quiet one.


That's symptomatic, now is it not?! :wink:


Cheers!

You just put a torch to my hopes. :evil: 

:lol: 

:D  Sorry!


Cheers!
November 29, 2006 10:12:07 PM

Quote:
(...) Intel is the one with the plenty-ES-chip history. Except for the launch of their 64bit processor AMD always has been the quiet one.


That's symptomatic, now is it not?! :wink:


Cheers!

:lol:  but they've never been this quiet 6 days from launch,rather reorted launch.either they are having serious problems or there is absolutely nothing to pre examine in terms of performance ,or the date will quietly be moved back a few weeks.
I think it could be fair to say that we know as much about the launch date as AMD does, and so maybe that's why no benches are showing up. Also these will be clocked mid range, and aren't going to be any conroe killer, they are just a shrunk x2..., athlon, etc.

Eh, yes and no. The numbers, the math, the probability, everything except the actual real-worldness that we're still waiting on, says that these 65nm X2 chips will be some of if not THE best overclocking chips in history.

And depending on how MUCH they overclock, they'll certainly come close to the Conroes-though I honestly doubt there'll be too much of a performance improvement comparing a stock 65nm 4000 X2 to a stock 90nm 4000 X2, etc. Whether or not they actually defeat Conroe remains to be seen. It is unlikely, but it is also possible. However, I'm going to be forced to agree that they won't kill Conroe.

EDIT: I do have to also admit that it'll be funny/ironic if the 65nm X2s are simultaneously the best overclocking chips in history and STILL don't dethrone Conroe.
November 30, 2006 1:28:54 AM

Quote:
I think it could be fair to say that we know as much about the launch date as AMD does, and so maybe that's why no benches are showing up. Also these will be clocked mid range, and aren't going to be any conroe killer, they are just a shrunk x2..., athlon, etc.


Nah, AMD surely has it more twisted than anyone else, but only from the inside out (WTM); I agree AMD's not going to kill anyone, with its next release. IMO, that's one of the reasons ESs are not out, yet. They [must] know what they're doing; and, it wouldn't be healthy at all, to come out knocking your chest off with something not worthwhile; AMD'll have to do it, whenever they find they can hit hard, in the computing arena.


Cheers!
I didn't mean to imply they don't know what they're doing, merely they are unsure of when they will launch their processors, the date has moved a lot, it used be Q1'07.
!