Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Has anyone seen a real chip IBM 45nm Demo?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Chip
  • IBM
  • Intel
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
February 2, 2007 10:16:13 PM

More about : real chip ibm 45nm demo

February 2, 2007 11:21:40 PM

Quote:
Intel had theirs over a year ago.

http://www.itweek.co.uk/personal-computer-world/news/21...


No.... they have not shown anything functioning in a public venue, not even on 65 nm... they have yet to release a 65 nm product.

I think they showed a 45nm SRAM or something, but it was more a joint venture with Samsung and others, along with IBM. Let's see if I can find the article....

*edit*

Well, here's something that might be what I was talking about. Not a full CPU or SRAM, but just a functional silicon circuit.
IBM and friends 45nm thing
February 2, 2007 11:57:47 PM

I'm curious... could amd skip 45nm and work on 32nm to try and close the gap with intel? or would not having a 45nm product crush their stock...
Related resources
February 3, 2007 1:05:12 AM

True.

I just remember IBM and partners coming out with a working 45nm model, but I couldn't remember if it was SRAM or something else.

@Lan-deRf_HA:

AMD could just bypass 45nm, but they would have to pretty much set the standard and test all 32nm equipment needs, pretty much like Intel and IBM have been doing. It just wouldn't be feasible, since AMD doesn't have the FABs to do such a thing right now. If they had a true R&D FAB, then they could possibly achieve it, but with 2 production FABs, it's not likely they would skip 45nm, unless IBM finds a way to perfect 45nm and goes straight into 32nm experimentation.
February 3, 2007 4:55:24 AM

Quote:

Yep, I saw that (or some report similar to this) --- this is vastly different in complexity to a 70 or 80 Mb SRAM chip or an MPU.


Actually, no it isn't.

This sounds like a full testchip (with working sram and various logic building blocks) that will be used to develop / debug their 45nm process. That's the same thing intel showed last year at this time. And, presumably, AMD as well.

A working CPU it is not. But it's certainly far from a trivial announcement.
February 3, 2007 4:59:26 AM

Quote:
True.

I just remember IBM and partners coming out with a working 45nm model, but I couldn't remember if it was SRAM or something else.

@Lan-deRf_HA:

AMD could just bypass 45nm, but they would have to pretty much set the standard and test all 32nm equipment needs, pretty much like Intel and IBM have been doing. It just wouldn't be feasible, since AMD doesn't have the FABs to do such a thing right now. If they had a true R&D FAB, then they could possibly achieve it, but with 2 production FABs, it's not likely they would skip 45nm, unless IBM finds a way to perfect 45nm and goes straight into 32nm experimentation.

Isn't that what their next expansion in Dresden is? Is an R&D FAB... atleast according to amd's website.
February 3, 2007 5:04:35 AM

Quote:
True.

I just remember IBM and partners coming out with a working 45nm model, but I couldn't remember if it was SRAM or something else.

@Lan-deRf_HA:

AMD could just bypass 45nm, but they would have to pretty much set the standard and test all 32nm equipment needs, pretty much like Intel and IBM have been doing. It just wouldn't be feasible, since AMD doesn't have the FABs to do such a thing right now. If they had a true R&D FAB, then they could possibly achieve it, but with 2 production FABs, it's not likely they would skip 45nm, unless IBM finds a way to perfect 45nm and goes straight into 32nm experimentation.

Isn't that what their next expansion in Dresden is? Is an R&D FAB... atleast according to amd's website.

Possibly, but I don't really have that information.

To me, and R&D Fab is mostly just that, for research and development. With Intel, they have D1D, which does most of the R&D work, as far I know. As new technologies are discovered, per se, it is passed off to the other fabs to further spin workable silicon. Of course, this is being done in D1D as well. So, with Intel, they have at least 2 or 3 fabs to help push newer technologies, while AMD only has 1 other fab, minus Charter's foundry, to help excelerate new tech.

Of course, this is just a simplified example, and not to be taken as hard, cold fact. If AMD does make the conversion of Dresden to an R&D fab, that would help AMD a lot.
February 3, 2007 5:43:25 AM

Quote:

Yep, I saw that (or some report similar to this) --- this is vastly different in complexity to a 70 or 80 Mb SRAM chip or an MPU.


Actually, no it isn't.

This sounds like a full testchip (with working sram and various logic building blocks) that will be used to develop / debug their 45nm process. That's the same thing intel showed last year at this time. And, presumably, AMD as well.

A working CPU it is not. But it's certainly far from a trivial announcement.

Frankly, I misunderstood the link refering to what he was discussing, I thought he was posting a 65 nm related link....

This is even more trivial than what I described.... it is one thing to simply say 'we have this...", ok I accept that you have it.... now let me see it.... an IO circuit with a memory cell??? Come on.... so you are going to tell me that a UART RS232 chip has the same complexity as an MPU?

Excuse me while I laugh a little.....

Ok, done.

Look....
Quote:
The component demonstrated a 30 per cent increase in performance over 65nm chips, the group claimed.


Read that article again, show me the metric where it gets 30% ??? Hmmmm.... well at least they claim it....

I am a "show me the data" sorta guy, press announcements like this -- especially from IBM -- while interesting, are not impressive.

Jack,

That announcement was far from trivial. It's a key milestone in their process development.

By your rationale, then intel didn't show squat until last week when they demo'd penryn A0.

What do you think intel used (and "showed off") to develop their 45nm to prepare for Penryn? The thing exactly like that IBM article was describing. A sandbox. Bits of logic building blocks, but nothing even remotely resembling a true MPU. That's not the point of the device.

Here's what I could find about intel's annoucement a year ago:
intel 45nm sram announcement Note the distinct lack of anything that even remotely resembles a MPU. Note, also, intel "claimed" 20% -- but I don't know if they backed that up anywhere (IEDM?)

I make no claims as to how well the thing actually works. That 30% number, to me, as well, appears to be purely conjecture. It's not the point of the article. My point is that it's a key, critical first step toward whatever they're going to make just to start design/process debug. To even get to the point where they *can* get a mask set to print some silicon to get some "data" to extrapolate means they are on their way. And that's far from an easy (or trivial) task.

Of course, on their way in this case means 1-2 years to product.
February 3, 2007 7:22:42 AM

could be that high-k and metal gates are hard to implement ?
and could slowdown the entire process thus not very convenient for intel's current "crush amd with all we can" production scheme? o_O
February 3, 2007 12:17:01 PM

Here is the final retail packaging!!!!

February 3, 2007 1:06:45 PM

Quote:

No..... what Intel showed me was a TEM of the high-K stack, a defect/yield matruity curve, 5 different systems booted and running software. This is DATA, this is IMPRESSIVE.

The actual implementation of the high-K in and of itself is revolutionary, when IBM acutally shows me a working device, then they have implemented a revolutionary material and kudo's to them.

I understand your point Jack, but IMHO you are using double standarts and ryman554 has a point here. Its not just press release from IBM and friends. Yes it may have been just "we have it too" type of press release, so what? They have working silicon and regardless if this was presented "professionally" or not, they moved a long way on this track. Asking video tapes, etc. is superficial IMO. Like you were bashing AMD Barcelona demo, they had it running live so according to your current post "itself is revolutionary, <..>, then they have implemented a revolutionary material and kudo's to them." but no, you bash AMD for not benchmarking in every way you want them, and if they would do it "unprofessionaly", it wouldnt count anyway? :roll:

In my opinion, regardless how companies manage their PR, as long as they deliver newer technology, preferably without long delay, its good enough to me. IBM, Intel, AMD - all have a good record of pushing the latest technologies, and btw IBM is long time leader on new patents, wiping the floor with others every single year.
February 3, 2007 1:38:13 PM

Oh boy here we go. That press release by IBM and partners is not very credible. IBM is known for paper launches. Question have you seen 65 nm IBM in any mass product yet? IBM known for having massive Phd resources who are very innovative and pile up a lot of patents. But they don't design a high yielding process technology.

Do you remember when IBM released their Cu/low-k process around 1999 only to have to scrap their low-k innovation due to near zero yields as reliability issues?? 8O 8O

BTW, AMD does not innovate, AMD pays IBM tons of money for process R&D. Even AMD chip architectures are not innovative. Their flagship designs were done by buying a microprocessor design company (NexGen) along with ex Intel chip designers
February 3, 2007 1:46:29 PM

If you have something that's good, you show it off. That's what Intel have done.
February 3, 2007 2:32:59 PM

No, it would end up in a disastrous process and chips.
Noone can just skip a process generation, you need the results from one generation, see what you could have done better and only then can you proceed to the next one.

Its like trying to jump across the Grand Canyon before having tried jumping across a smaller distance.
February 3, 2007 2:57:36 PM

Quote:
Oh boy here we go. That press release by IBM and partners is not very credible. IBM is known for paper launches. Question have you seen 65 nm IBM in any mass product yet? IBM known for having massive Phd resources who are very innovative and pile up a lot of patents. But they don't design a high yielding process technology.

Do you remember when IBM released their Cu/low-k process around 1999 only to have to scrap their low-k innovation due to near zero yields as reliability issues?? 8O 8O

BTW, AMD does not innovate, AMD pays IBM tons of money for process R&D. Even AMD chip architectures are not innovative. Their flagship designs were done by buying a microprocessor design company (NexGen) along with ex Intel chip designers


u know u sound like a dyed in the wool INTEL FANBOI
February 3, 2007 3:24:11 PM

Quote:
Here is the final retail packaging!!!!



You are on a roll.... :) 

Kaiser or Cinnamon?
February 3, 2007 3:58:41 PM

Quote:

No..... what Intel showed me was a TEM of the high-K stack, a defect/yield matruity curve, 5 different systems booted and running software. This is DATA, this is IMPRESSIVE.

The actual implementation of the high-K in and of itself is revolutionary, when IBM acutally shows me a working device, then they have implemented a revolutionary material and kudo's to them.

I understand your point Jack, but IMHO you are using double standarts and ryman554 has a point here. Its not just press release from IBM and friends. Yes it may have been just "we have it too" type of press release, so what? They have working silicon and regardless if this was presented "professionally" or not, they moved a long way on this track. Asking video tapes, etc. is superficial IMO. Like you were bashing AMD Barcelona demo, they had it running live so according to your current post "itself is revolutionary, <..>, then they have implemented a revolutionary material and kudo's to them." but no, you bash AMD for not benchmarking in every way you want them, and if they would do it "unprofessionaly", it wouldnt count anyway? :roll:

In my opinion, regardless how companies manage their PR, as long as they deliver newer technology, preferably without long delay, its good enough to me. IBM, Intel, AMD - all have a good record of pushing the latest technologies, and btw IBM is long time leader on new patents, wiping the floor with others every single year.

Apples to oranges. Barcelona is 65nm, nothing revolutionary there at all, i.e. transistors built much differently.
February 3, 2007 4:52:19 PM

Quote:
Oh boy here we go. That press release by IBM and partners is not very credible. IBM is known for paper launches. Question have you seen 65 nm IBM in any mass product yet? IBM known for having massive Phd resources who are very innovative and pile up a lot of patents. But they don't design a high yielding process technology.

Do you remember when IBM released their Cu/low-k process around 1999 only to have to scrap their low-k innovation due to near zero yields as reliability issues?? 8O 8O

BTW, AMD does not innovate, AMD pays IBM tons of money for process R&D. Even AMD chip architectures are not innovative. Their flagship designs were done by buying a microprocessor design company (NexGen) along with ex Intel chip designers


u know u sound like a dyed in the wool INTEL FANBOI

65nm Cell
February 3, 2007 7:27:55 PM

hardly I just happen to build my last 2 PC's using AMD thunderbird, yes thunderbird 950 Mhz (you are that old to remember?) & and a 64 bit 3200 CPU was the latest one. Now to educate your sorry little ass, what i have stated are known industry facts, but sure it hurts you IBM/AMD poster boy :o 
February 3, 2007 7:32:09 PM

nice try, FUD link :D  :D  :D 
February 5, 2007 10:24:22 AM

Quote:
Oh boy here we go. That press release by IBM and partners is not very credible. IBM is known for paper launches. Question have you seen 65 nm IBM in any mass product yet? IBM known for having massive Phd resources who are very innovative and pile up a lot of patents. But they don't design a high yielding process technology.

Do you remember when IBM released their Cu/low-k process around 1999 only to have to scrap their low-k innovation due to near zero yields as reliability issues?? 8O 8O

BTW, AMD does not innovate, AMD pays IBM tons of money for process R&D. Even AMD chip architectures are not innovative. Their flagship designs were done by buying a microprocessor design company (NexGen) along with ex Intel chip designers

Every IT company in the world have done paper launches, including Intel. Sometimes IBM lags in tech. progress, sometimes they are far ahead. Yields - every new tech. usualy have low yields, especially high complex with high transistors count (like Cell), but as fab tech. matures, they do have nice yields as everyone else (Intel, TSMC, you name it) so your point is unbased. Btw, do you know IBM fabs like East Fishkill was named Top fab of the year?

About innovation - AMD indeed pays large sums to co-op with IBM in R&D. This doesnt in any way negate the fact AMD have their own tech. team, which (along with IBM help) does big impact on the industry and even intel follows AMD. Long gone the days when Intel was shining star and everyone else was following, its not the case last 6 years. Major points I remember at this moment:

1) AMDs DDR vision against Intels RDRAM. Intel had no choice but to follow AMD, since market didnt really accepted its "bundles".
2) 64 bits. Intel was follower.
3) Native dual and quad core designs. AMD is first with both, Intel soon to follow with quad in next year or so.
4) Low speed but high efficient cpu. Athlon vs P4 - winner was clear. Intel scraped P4 for similar to AMD approach.
5) On-die memory controler - its only the matter of time when intel will do somthing similar IMO.
6) Hyper transport. Only the matter of time when Intel will offer similar solution, its FSB is outdated for years compared to AMD.
February 5, 2007 10:48:16 AM

Some of what you wrote, I disagree with.

1) I dont know much about.
2)Itanium came before k8 and was 64bit.
3)Stupid arguement.
4)Pentium-M
5)Timna
6)I dont know much about either.
February 5, 2007 10:59:20 AM

Quote:
Some of what you wrote, I disagree with.

1) I dont know much about.
2)Itanium came before k8 and was 64bit.
3)Stupid arguement.
4)Pentium-M
5)Timna
6)I dont know much about either.

2) Totally different platform rings the bell?
3) For user native or not doesnt matter much, but from tech. point of view it does. Learn to look from different perspectives :roll:
4) Different market. Intel followed on desktops AMD, not vice versa, forgeting all its songs "GHz is everything".
5) True, forgot that one, but it was a dead duck, never released after i820 chipset fiasco.
February 5, 2007 1:22:55 PM

If you are so genious, what are you doing in this forum, you must be there and showing IBM/AMD the right way to build a 45nm chip...
If you know that, you will be a rich man, becouse AMD and Intel will pay you a lot of money for it.... But if you will just read links and posts it here, so you are like me, a costumer, and not an AMD or Intel engineer.
February 5, 2007 1:31:18 PM

Actually, there are a lot of Intel and AMD engineers that post here as registered users along with a couple of industry insiders. So whats your point again?
February 5, 2007 3:01:35 PM

Tell me one...
February 5, 2007 3:06:51 PM

Quote:
Some of what you wrote, I disagree with.

1) I dont know much about.
2)Itanium came before k8 and was 64bit.
3)Stupid arguement.
4)Pentium-M
5)Timna
6)I dont know much about either.


if I remember correclty, itanium was 64 bits, but not x86...
to run x86 it had to "emulate"
thus slowing down a lot.
February 5, 2007 3:18:48 PM

JKflipflop. NMDante.
February 5, 2007 3:24:49 PM

The first to 64bit in x86 processors, but the Itanium was built specifically for 64bit then again I dont really know.
February 5, 2007 3:47:57 PM

Quote:
1) AMDs DDR vision against Intels RDRAM. Intel had no choice but to follow AMD, since market didnt really accepted its "bundles".
2) 64 bits. Intel was follower.
3) Native dual and quad core designs. AMD is first with both, Intel soon to follow with quad in next year or so.
4) Low speed but high efficient cpu. Athlon vs P4 - winner was clear. Intel scraped P4 for similar to AMD approach.
5) On-die memory controler - its only the matter of time when intel will do somthing similar IMO.
6) Hyper transport. Only the matter of time when Intel will offer similar solution, its FSB is outdated for years compared to AMD.


Yes RDRAM was rubbish. Never was sure why Intel tried to take that route.
The rest of your points are not really valid though. Those things are required in the future, but Intel is surviving without them at the moment.
AMD don't even have quad core yet. Their version of quad core is 2 cpus stuck on an expensive mobo.

3,5 and 6 will come soon for intel, most people won't notice the difference though.
February 5, 2007 9:13:29 PM

Quote:
JKflipflop. NMDante.


I'm not an engineer at Intel. But I do know a few that do post here once in awhile. I won't give out their handles, but they are here. I give them grief when I see their posts.

I'm just a regular fab grunt. :D 
February 5, 2007 9:17:26 PM

Sorry for the mix up, but I had to shut him up. ^_^
February 5, 2007 9:24:36 PM

No problem.

I do know a lot about the processes we work on at my fab, but that's something I won't share with anyone outside of work. Not even my family. Let's just say that I know as much as some engineers at work, I just don't get paid like them. LOL. Stupid degree.

I don't see why Jack would need to work for AMD, IBM, or Intel, when he's just gathering information and getting more knowledge about things he doesn't know that well. Hell, that's pretty good. The forum seems to make him research stuff for people who ask, and that's more than I would do, especially for a forum.

Oh, and to bassin - Jack does more than just post links, he tries to break it down or explain it where an average Joe, like you and me, can understand it.
February 5, 2007 9:51:54 PM

Quote:
No problem.

I do know a lot about the processes we work on at my fab, but that's something I won't share with anyone outside of work. Not even my family. Let's just say that I know as much as some engineers at work, I just don't get paid like them. LOL. Stupid degree.

I don't see why Jack would need to work for AMD, IBM, or Intel, when he's just gathering information and getting more knowledge about things he doesn't know that well. Hell, that's pretty good. The forum seems to make him research stuff for people who ask, and that's more than I would do, especially for a forum.

Oh, and to bassin - Jack does more than just post links, he tries to break it down or explain it where an average Joe, like you and me, can understand it.

its always good to get someone to explain all the technology crap with apples, right? ;) 
February 5, 2007 10:04:48 PM

Quote:
No problem.

I do know a lot about the processes we work on at my fab, but that's something I won't share with anyone outside of work. Not even my family. Let's just say that I know as much as some engineers at work, I just don't get paid like them. LOL. Stupid degree.

I don't see why Jack would need to work for AMD, IBM, or Intel, when he's just gathering information and getting more knowledge about things he doesn't know that well. Hell, that's pretty good. The forum seems to make him research stuff for people who ask, and that's more than I would do, especially for a forum.

Oh, and to bassin - Jack does more than just post links, he tries to break it down or explain it where an average Joe, like you and me, can understand it.

its always good to get someone to explain all the technology crap with apples, right? ;) 

I think so. I mean, how many people would really be interested in reading a link about how copper interconnects can help do this and that, in a format that only people with EE degrees have any chance of truly understanding?

I would rather have the information broken down to terms that I can identify with, and hopefully understand, myself.

:lol: 
February 5, 2007 10:19:23 PM

Fab grunt,

Around here their called fab rats. ('cept maybe the guys over at D1D, they might be just a 'little' better than most) Has Intel gotten more specific on the end of your retooling beside '2H'?

Years ago the guys at D1D were gettin $80k/yr on strait time before OT and bonuses, haven't asked since then. Are the job requirments in N.M. as high as D1D? Far as I can see, and they've demonstrated, their easily the best techs in the world. I'm supposing N.M. would allow minimum wage... :D 
February 5, 2007 11:08:17 PM

Quote:
Fab grunt,

Around here their called fab rats. ('cept maybe the guys over at D1D, they might be just a 'little' better than most) Has Intel gotten more specific on the end of your retooling beside '2H'?

Years ago the guys at D1D were gettin $80k/yr on strait time before OT and bonuses, haven't asked since then. Are the job requirments in N.M. as high as D1D? Far as I can see, and they've demonstrated, their easily the best techs in the world. I'm supposing N.M. would allow minimum wage... :D 


Retooing info is still up in the air, as far as I know. I've heard the same rumors over and over, and just gave up on listening. :roll:

The job requirements are pretty much the same as in D1D. As for minimum wage...if anyone working a tool in the fab is making minimum wage, they are getting shafted. LOL. :lol: 
February 5, 2007 11:53:02 PM

The green badges that wax the floors make more than minimum wage.
February 6, 2007 5:50:17 AM

Very nice to see here few people who work inside famous fabs *hopes for some insider pointers now and then* 8)
February 6, 2007 6:45:39 AM

Quote:
If you are so genious, what are you doing in this forum, you must be there and showing IBM/AMD the right way to build a 45nm chip...
If you know that, you will be a rich man, becouse AMD and Intel will pay you a lot of money for it.... But if you will just read links and posts it here, so you are like me, a costumer, and not an AMD or Intel engineer.


Dear Mr. Bassin from Iraq (?):

Anyone who arrives on this forum and starts doubting the qualifications of our forum gurus or the validity of their opinions is a (choose one or all):

moron idiot stupid dumba$$ loser a$$hole fool dumb jackass imbecile jerk dips*** f***tard dork tool dolt wanker simpleton ignorant cretin dunce

and spends most of his spare time engaging in activities similar to this:



Furthermore, anyone who has a problem with Jack et al. has a problem with me. Wanna make something out of it? Bring it on, muther'.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2007 7:49:20 AM

AMD has a hard streak ahead of em, they will have to beat somewhere, either in performance, efficency, cost or overclockability, and atm the core 2 duo at 65nm is tough enough to match, 45nm with an even better manafacturing process is going to be even harder for AMD.

I cant really really see AMD both out performing Intel AND keeping under the thermal limit, not to mention overclocking and price.

The transistor budget of AMDs new cpu is the biggest sofar concidering...
February 6, 2007 9:46:38 AM

I don't know whether it was EE Times that reported it or other online news source, but from Aceshardware it was said that the Intel article was online at 8am that day and IBM went online 9am. Because IBM has no actual chips to show that'll be in production, IBM probably just showed it again just to say "we are ready". The only 45nm chip that's slated to arrive in 2008 that's related to IBM's process is AMD's chips. IBM has no 45nm chips near that time to show off. Cell will go 65nm very soon, and Power 6 coming in 1-1.5 years is at 65nm too.

Since it takes at least 2 years to go from one process generation to another, that means we won't be able to see 45nm AMD CPUs until late 2008 at least. It is not something that can be shortened just like that, if it could have been done Intel and others would have been doing it. Remember Intel says 45nm production in second half of 2007?? But the chips are coming near 2008?? It'll be same with AMD claiming 45nm production in second half of 2008.
February 6, 2007 11:15:12 AM

What incentive does IBM have to move to 45nm? I don't think it's becasue they can't do it; if they really wanted to (or needed to) they would.
February 6, 2007 11:25:39 AM

Quote:
What incentive does IBM have to move to 45nm? I don't think it's becasue they can't do it; if they really wanted to (or needed to) they would.


LOL. I hate replying to posts like this. Why does Intel want to go to 45nm?? To lower costs and make a better product. Is IBM a pure foundry only company like TSMC?? No, they have products to make on their own fabs. They have a high-end CPU called Power 6 for gods sakes. They also have CELL. They would both go to 45nm if they could. Therefore, the first product that can go on 45nm is AMD's CPUs. You can't just make up a CPU because you want to, you produce it when you are ready or it would make Prescott look successful as Conroe did in comparison.

Why does Intel show a 45nm product working in their labs but IBM doesn't?? Cause IBM can't. Why did they rehash everything that they showed 2 years ago?? You don't want your investors to know you are doing worse than competition, but when you don't have a product, you don't have a product.

Have you done anything and found you had a limit to your capabilities?? Could you 'just do it' better because you want to??
February 6, 2007 11:31:57 AM

Quote:
What incentive does IBM have to move to 45nm? I don't think it's becasue they can't do it; if they really wanted to (or needed to) they would.


LOL. I hate replying to posts like this. Why does Intel want to go to 45nm?? To lower costs and make a better product. Is IBM a pure foundry only company like TSMC?? No, they have products to make on their own fabs. They have a high-end CPU called Power 6 for gods sakes. They also have CELL. They would both go to 45nm if they could. Therefore, the first product that can go on 45nm is AMD's CPUs. You can't just make up a CPU because you want to, you produce it when you are ready or it would make Prescott look successful as Conroe did in comparison.

Why does Intel show a 45nm product working in their labs but IBM doesn't?? Cause IBM can't. Why did they rehash everything that they showed 2 years ago?? You don't want your investors to know you are doing so bad, but when you don't have a product, you don't have a product.

Have you done anything and found you had a limit to your capabilities?? Could you 'just do it' better because you want to??
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Chill out Mr. DavidC1!

Competition is what I was getting at. :wink:
February 6, 2007 11:34:22 AM

Quote:
= :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Chill out Mr. DavidC1!

Competition is what I was getting at. :wink:


Sigh, I should. Thanks :) .
February 6, 2007 2:17:26 PM

I approve of this message. :D 

Most companies show off products even before they're close to ready. AMD and IBM are pretty much always behind Intel in terms of actual product (IBM is good at making a new type of transistor on a specific technology, such as the quantum transistor, but is slow at making actual processors). Because of this, AMD and IBM definitely release as much news as they can about unreleased products in order to show that they aren't way behind (even when they actually are).

High-K took AMD/IBM completely off guard. They expected that Intel would wait until 32nm (or at least until Nehalem). They were forced to mention news that they already published (essentially that they're working on it), but dressed it up to look like they're the same as Intel. Having a technology in a product that is ramping to HVM manufacturing by EOY is way different than having a single transistor functioning (which is STILL speculation - they may not be that far, details are lacking). If they can make it, expect a news article before Q3. If not, expect them to try to downplay High-K as much as possible. You can bet the engineers at AMD/IBM are working 24/7 :D 
February 8, 2007 9:39:04 AM

CaptRobertApril:

Its easy to go in google, put some words there (like 45nm chip) and come here with all that bs.
You are a marine in preparation to the venezuele invasion? Go there and you american, with all your technology, will bombard all tje territory with supersonic airplanes at 8000 of altitude. After that, you soldiers will need to gon on foot, and will eat sheet like here in Iraq where you guys with Abrams and Bradleys are loosing a fight agains an army armed with Ak-47, horses, and Scimitars. Go fuck you bastard. You even know what a war looks like...
Keep plaing your pc games, becouse here, you will live like 1 week.


And no Intel or Amd EE ?
February 8, 2007 9:48:21 AM

Edited as per Ninja's request.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest