Intel thinks AMD is meat

LOL just like AMD last year...anyway I think AMD are pretty boned with their current strategy for now....I mean barcelona is looking to lose the lead back to intel when penryn comes out also it looks like they'll (AMD) be out outsourcing their 45nm cpu's to TSMC(which is a postive imo for now), but how are IBM and samsung threating Intel?

Yup.

In a non-quote for quote way, that's exactly how the beginning of that "memo" (more like article) starts.

Nothing about dismissing AMD, more like, "Okay, AMD is there and not leaving, but they aren't the only ones we need to watch".

That's about it.

hahahahaahahaha that is funny

Intel's imagination of AMD+ATI=DAAMIT when you say "Meat" to them.

Scary.

IBM has PowerPC, and more specifically, the Cell Processor. They could definately compete in the desktop market one of these days if they decided to do so - they have the technology, engineers, etc. and would certainly be a formidable competitor. They completely control the console market right now - the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii all have PowerPC processors - 360's "Xenon" processor, PS3's "Cell" processor, and Wii's "Broadway" processor.

Samsung is a BEAST of a company. They make everything practically - from hard drives to HDTV's to cell phones, etc. They have enough money and expertise that if they started really getting into processors, they'd easily end up on the same level as Intel.

The Cell isnt an x86 CPU so it could never sell Windows. However, we already know it can run Linux, if IBm decided to sell consumer level workstation gear, it could make inroads into server processing space.

Isnt IBM a bigger company than Intel anyway?

I dont think Intel is completely disregarding AMD, they are just saying they think they have their bases covered for now, but obviously they know it would be foolish to not watch AMD.

By comparing each other Financial statements (freely available on their websites) IBM appears to twice as big as Intel. Total Assets for IBM are $103 million whilst Intel has Assets totalling $48 million. But I doubt IBM are going into the x86 market any time soon, IBM have just come out of there recovery stage, and given how many years they have spent in duldrums I don't think they want to risk rocking the boat (in their case an oil tanker is more apat) just yet.

nah what he meant was.... well... a highly speculative, coupled with absolutely groundless statement article from our favorite spinner, who reported Barcelona B1 stepping to go beyond 2.5Ghz, The Inquirer.

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41142

Its funny how people actually took that article with seriousness....

What you said is mostly correct but 45nm is a new processing technology. 45nm requires more refined silicon and chemicals needed than 65nm. The cost per wafer at 45nm will thus be higher than the cost per wafer at 65nm. It may take a few months before these prices lowers near the costs of the 65nm and allowing greater number of CPU's produced at 45nm to be cheaper.

Problem is where the companies match isnt just the only thing they do, and they have different competitors in different areas. AMD compete with Intel in just prossessors.

The x86 is not a single patent, but a series of patent that become a "license". If AMD is bought out by Samsung, unless Samsung developed its own x86 instruction set, Samsung cannot manufacture any x86, based on the agreement.

The justice department "may" crack down on Intel's monopoly in the case where AMD is out of the game, but its not Intel's fault that AMD is uncompetitive. What is likely to happen is that Intel may make another agreement with Samsung, but at a price.

However, your assertion that 45nm is more expensive than 65nm do not hold. There will be a period before a manufacturing process reaches a satisfactory yield. Before that, a FAB would not mass produce these processors, as it would be less cost-effective. Mass production will only occur if the satisfactory yield is achieved, and at that moment, the unit cost of 45nm processors will be a lot cheaper than 65nm.

That period is already passed for Intel. I believe 45nm processors at the moment cost about the same as their 65nm counterparts, and only getting cheaper. I do not have the knowledge on how many more processors can a wafer produce on 45nm than 65nm, but it would definitely be advantageous if every chip making companies are switching to 45nm.

NMDante, can you please shed some light on this matter?

I am not sure what you mean by "more refined silicon" or what extra chemicals will be needed over 65nm. If you are talking about SOI and immersion lithography, then those prices will not affect Intel's 45nm offerings, since they are not using SOI nor are they using immersion lithography (for this generation of 45nm). The costs per wafer will then cost less at 45nm than at 65nm, but not immediately, but sooner than the conversion from 130nm to 90nm, which had to figure in the initial retooling from 200mm to 300mm wafers.

This is not a patent, but a cross licensing agreement between AMD and Intel. If AMD is bought out or files for bankruptcy they will lose the license, as per the contract. They cannot transfer the license to another company (again, as per contract), and if another company wants a license, they will have to negotiate a new licensing agreement with Intel, to make an x86 based CPU. They can make another type, like the CELL, but unless the company can create an OS that will work with it, and create a software library that will run on this new OS, it might never make it off the ground.

Check this link: FindLaw Intel/AMD Cross License agreement.
Section 6, part 6.2. It states all the termination of license stuff.

I cannot shed much light on the matter, as I am just a lowly fab grunt, but I do know that the costs of having more die on a wafer is significant enough for both companies to continually push to smaller processes. The initial costs of R&D, retooling, and fine tuning the process for better yields will add on to the initial 45nm product costs, but the same could be said about 65nm, and look how low the prices got after a few years (the first 65nm CPU was the 955EE, released late 2005).

And you are correct, Intel has passed the "qualifying" stage of 45nm with Penryn, yet I do believe that Penryn based CPUs will be a bit higher than 65nm based Core CPUs (I'm guessing around $50-100). But as more fabs are retooled for 45nm, and more and more of the production becomes 45nm, the costs will start falling (like it is now).

I wish I could tell you the typical die yields between 45nm and 65nm. Or what the cost reduction was going from 90nm to 65nm, or even from 200mm to 300mm wafers, but I really don't have that information.