Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel delays 45nm QC...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 19, 2007 7:44:45 AM

Cites lack of competition from AMD Phenom as a reason for the delay. :ange: 

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20071218PD212.html

Quote:
Intel has recently adjusted its product strategy and will postpone three 45nm quad-core CPUs that were originally scheduled to launch in January next year, according to sources at motherboard makers.

Intel has already notified its partners that it will push back the launch of the three CPUs to February or March next year, depending on AMD's schedule for triple-core and the upcoming Phenom CPUs.

Launching the CPUs now will not benefit Intel much in its battle with AMD, while they could cause damage to Intel's 65nm quad-core CPUs, therefore the company has decided it is in no rush to release new products until AMD is able to present more of a threat.

The three CPUs that Intel plans to delay are the Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550, added the sources.

Intel commented that its launch of 45nm quad-core CPUs for desktops is on track for first quarter 2008, but declined to disclose a specific time


DAMMIT! I was looking forward to getting a Q9450...

Looking further ahead, this could spell bad news for Nehalem as well. If AMD can't get into a competitive position soon, Nehalem can easily be pushed out to 2009 for the very same reasons...

More about : intel delays 45nm

a c 478 à CPUs
a c 121 À AMD
a c 117 å Intel
December 19, 2007 7:49:16 AM

:( 
December 19, 2007 8:14:41 AM

::sighs::

Well, at least I was planning to wait for nvidia's 9800 as well before I bought my new rig, so it still falls in the same time frame ^_^. lucky for me...
Related resources
December 19, 2007 9:04:46 AM

Look past the smokescreen of the Phenom and that looks to me like a great big load of PR bullshit.
I don't believe that for a second! And no, I'm not an AMD fan boy, I'm talking about company politics!
Nobody can argue with Intel over it, as the only people that will know are internal...
If that is true I shall mange mon chapeau ;) 
December 19, 2007 9:55:32 AM

LukeBird said:
Look past the smokescreen of the Phenom and that looks to me like a great big load of PR bullshit.
I don't believe that for a second! And no, I'm not an AMD fan boy, I'm talking about company politics!
Nobody can argue with Intel over it, as the only people that will know are internal...
If that is true I shall mange mon chapeau ;) 



Good point, what if Intel is full of BS and is really delaying for another reason.

I'm dissapointed either way. It goes to show you that a CPU market without AMD will lack innovation.
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2007 10:01:36 AM

LukeBird said:

If that is true I shall mange mon chapeau ;) 



Your hat has a parasitic infection caused by mites??? :pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2007 10:11:47 AM

no matter how you fry this bacon up it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth...and just yesterday i said what a bad time it was for a build. apperantly timing just got worse. merry christmas everyone!!!!
December 19, 2007 10:25:51 AM

ergh :pfff: 

was going to hold out till Jan with my old single core Opty... but March is just too long a wait

Just ordered:

Asus P5K Premium/WiFi-AP Intel P35 Black Pearl Special Edition £109.99
Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz - Retail £129.99
OCZ 2GB (2x1GB) PC2-8500C5 1066MHz SLI-Ready Edition Dual Channel DDR2 £64.99
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB SATA-II 32MB Cache £61.99

The Ltd edition motherboard seems to have a bunch of extra stability based OCing features ^^
December 19, 2007 10:54:22 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Good point, what if Intel is full of BS and is really delaying for another reason.

I'm dissapointed either way. It goes to show you that a CPU market without AMD will lack innovation.



Rumors come out about an Intel delay due to an errata in the Yorkfield citing a delay until Feb/March. Intel pushes the launch back to Feb/March due to "lack of competition."

Intel also pushes the launch of the X48 back... to Feb/March because of a Tier 1 Vendors overstock of X38s.

Things just seem to line up too well.
December 19, 2007 10:56:10 AM

Quote:
Delayed because of lack of competition from AMD. ROFLMAO. Thats a good one. Id say its delayed because of lack of motherboard vendor support. They are all pissed Intel requires a new chipset for just about every friggin new chip they come out with and they cant keep up.



Not this BS again..

QX9650s (You know, those Penryn quads already out) work in P35s, X38s, 780i's, and even some of the 9x5 series motherboards (depending on BIOS updates).

They don't work with 680i. Believe what you will about that (Intel mad at nVidia, etc).
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2007 10:56:57 AM

Quote:
Delayed because of lack of competition from AMD. ROFLMAO. Thats a good one. Id say its delayed because of lack of motherboard vendor support. They are all pissed Intel requires a new chipset for just about every friggin new chip they come out with and they cant keep up.



Strange.... My P35 will work just fine.

But we've had this conversation before, too, Ms B.
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2007 11:00:19 AM

Every post you make is full of utter bullcrap mrsbytch. You say the same fud over and over and over again. The mobos and chipsets for these cpus are out and been out for a while. What they said makes perfect sense. I believe by now they have more then enuff of the new quads to launch. It must be killing you inside that you actually have intel inside your machine.
December 19, 2007 11:01:18 AM

cnumartyr said:
Rumors come out about an Intel delay due to an errata in the Yorkfield citing a delay until Feb/March. Intel pushes the launch back to Feb/March due to "lack of competition."

Intel also pushes the launch of the X48 back... to Feb/March because of a Tier 1 Vendors overstock of X38s.

Things just seem to line up too well.



If it is true that Intel screwed up that's too bad. However, Intel is in a position where they can screw up. Heck, Intel has proven that they are able to push an inferior product and people will trip over each other to buy it. AMD does not have the luxury.

This is good news for AMD if true. AMD needs a break (although all the "bad things" that happen to AMD are of their own fault).
December 19, 2007 11:10:15 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
This is good news for AMD if true.


What's the credebility of this source? Any official anouncement? I have to change my entire build if this is the case and I want to know for sure before I jump and get a Q6600! Damn!
December 19, 2007 11:37:17 AM

Digitimes is credible.
Their sources are hardware vendors in the Far East.
They always get multipel sources and cross-check.

Intel may not have made a public announcement, but its true.
December 19, 2007 11:48:08 AM

Oh, and Intel's statement about lack of push from AMD does not sound credible.

The 4nm Quads will be cheaper to produce than the 65nm so Intel wants to get over.

The most likely reasons would seem to be clearing stock prior to their release since the new quads will have higher speeds and lower tray prices which will make them hard to move after the release.

Other reasons could be a request for more time from Mobo makers to verify all of their BIOS for their current boards for this chips.

December 19, 2007 11:56:52 AM

Thanks for the info, zenmaster. Damn, damn, doubledamn. It's all AMD's fault. If Hector hadn't falen asleep at the switch a year and a half ago, there would be competetive presure on Intel, regardless of whether the "lack of push from AMD" story holds water or not. This sounds liek the begining of the monopoly thats going to screw us all up, increasing prices and delaying inovation. Hector desirves to spend the rest of his life in a red cap saying "would you like fries with that?" Eitehr that or being dragged behind a Sporty on my favorite gravel fireroad. :( 
December 19, 2007 11:58:15 AM

Like TC said there is a positive side to this. It gives Amd a little more time that they didn't previously have.

Personally I believe its perfectly viable for them to delay through lack of competition. I also believe there are other factors involved not just lack of competition.

With Amd currently not really selling any cpu's because of the stop ship and even giving them away for free a full on Penryn assualt wouldn't be far from finishing them off. This in turn would lead Intel to become a monopoly which even they don't want including all of us.

I think nvidia have done the same thing. They have deliberatly delayed products due to lack of competiton. Its funny that out of nowhere the 8800gt arrived just before the 3800 series launch. And now to cement the leadership the 8800gts has been launched but they havn't mentioned anything above that.

My biggest fear now is that when the 65nm chips start becoming in short supply and Intel releases Penryn based cpu's they might increase the price. So the lucky few that can get a 65nm cpu will get it at a cut down price. Which will leave the rest of us with the overpriced 45nm cpu's.
December 19, 2007 12:05:37 PM

You're right gpippas. AMD is a DELETED but their existence as a legitamate competitor did keep Intel on the straight and narrow. If CPUs end up in a monopoly situation gawd save us all. We'll be putting second mortgages on the ranch in order to buy an enthusiast comptuer. Intel is acting this way because they can. After all why not take time to clear out the shelves? What are they going to lose sales to? DELETED Phenoms? Basterdized Barcelonas? Ailing Agenas? Krappedout Kumas? This sux. :( 

This is a "family" forum, please bear that in mind when choosing your adjectives, adverbs and nouns
December 19, 2007 12:06:54 PM

Well I'd be willing to bet that what I said above is true...
Intel have seen what happened to AMD by admitting that there was a major errata problem and have had the **** pretty much kicked out of them by all.
Intel are obviously in the fortunate position that it isn't too much of a problem if they delay lower clocked 45nm parts. Perhaps they're having problems they don't care to let on about?
As I said, it certainly whiffs more than "no competition"....
Anybody even vaguely involoved in marketing would see that is a great way to increase your dominance, by launching when your competitior is weak.
And no, I don't think that would lead to a monopoly that Intel would be criticised for (a la Microsoft)
December 19, 2007 12:12:15 PM

LukeBird, it could be like if the Pats played the Dolphins and in the forth quarter leading 73-0 they sat their starters. Why bother runing up the score?
December 19, 2007 12:34:02 PM

My opinion would be that there was an alternative reason for the delay other than 'competition' Honestly, if Intel was able to push the 45nm out now they would, first and foremost they will be getting more proc. per wafer, making more money for them. Remember we are talking about companies with bean counters here, regardless if you like AMD or Intel.
December 19, 2007 12:50:51 PM

Hey, the way I figure it, it's bean countin alright. Intel looked at the fact that AMD is on the verge of flatlining, saw that DELETED enoms don't work worth a damn and they can't give them away, and figured that they might as well take care of their own more minor erata while not cutting the legs out from under there own Q6600. Just like Belichick wouldnt take the chance of getting Brady hurt on a fluke sack by the Fins when it didn't matter worth squat. Just sit back, take your time, and run out the clock.
December 19, 2007 12:55:52 PM

thematrixhazuneo said:
My opinion would be that there was an alternative reason for the delay other than 'competition' Honestly, if Intel was able to push the 45nm out now they would, first and foremost they will be getting more proc. per wafer, making more money for them. Remember we are talking about companies with bean counters here, regardless if you like AMD or Intel.


There probably are other reasons to delay back lack of competition could easily be the main one.

Getting 45nm cpu's won't necasserily make that much more money for them because there are still a lot of 65nm cpu's available that havn't been sold. If Intel ramps down production of the 65nm cpu's they can slowly bleed the market until they release 45nm cpu's.

The same thing happens everytime AMD change there skt. Look at skt 939 cpu's. After the switch to AM2, 939 skt cpu's had almost dissapeared within 3 months. The only ones that could be found had tripled in price.

Intel can do exactly the same thing but instead of the 65nm cpu's increaseing in price the 45nm cpu's that replace will. People can complain all they like but there will be no 65nm cpu's left to buy, instead you are only left with the choice buying overpriced cpu's from Intel or mediocre cpu's from Amd.

And the circle of life is complete. We are then back to the pre K8/K7 days.
December 19, 2007 1:03:56 PM

This could suck, I was anxiously awaiting one of the new chips :( 
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
December 19, 2007 1:19:18 PM

thematrixhazuneo said:
My opinion would be that there was an alternative reason for the delay other than 'competition' Honestly, if Intel was able to push the 45nm out now they would, first and foremost they will be getting more proc. per wafer, making more money for them. Remember we are talking about companies with bean counters here, regardless if you like AMD or Intel.



My thoughts exactly. There's got to be some other reason here. Maybe they found their own bugs that need to be fixed first.
December 19, 2007 1:28:37 PM

Ya like I said its probably a combinition of the erata plus a "what the hell" attitude: Clear the shelves since the compitition isn't going anywhere fast.
December 19, 2007 1:41:39 PM

epsilon84 said:

DAMMIT! I was looking forward to getting a Q9450...

Looking further ahead, this could spell bad news for Nehalem as well. If AMD can't get into a competitive position soon, Nehalem can easily be pushed out to 2009 for the very same reasons...


Well, if all the Intel fanboys get their wish, and AMD dies, then we'll be back to Netburst days in regards Intel business practices. They might even cancel their own fusion plans and go head to head with Nvidia in the discrete GPU market.

I can't understand people buying Intel right now. Sure, they have the "best" but X2 is still quite good and, though Phenom won't be decent before 45nm (AMD should have followed Intel's lead and avoided 65nm native quad core), buying Intel now is like asking for trouble a few years down the line.

Is it all about increments of 10 fps in a particular FPS or 40 seconds in video encoding? I can see the time differences in 3DS Max or Divx making a difference in the workstation market, but at home? All in all, I've bought more Intel CPUs since 1993 than AMD, but only when Intel had the working product. I chose Pentium over K5, but I went K62 because it was a decent CPU at a budget price. I went P4 Northwood over Athlon XP because of heat issues, but I avoided Prescott and Smithfield Netburst and went Athlon X2 instead.

Now, I don't see the real world difference that everyone claims is there, at least not enough of a difference that matters to me. So, I buy AMD. Plus, I'm a bit old fashioned, I prefer pins on the CPU and not the motherboard, and I find AMD stock coolers decent enough at stock speeds (I don't overclock). Now, AMD has the benefit of ATI chipsets and GPU's, and I've only bought an Nvidia chipset and GPU combo once as a barebones offer.

I do wish that AMD had planned to release a hybrid Crossfire in March that actually benefited from power savings, and that worked with more cards than the upcoming 3400 series. As is, I'll just have to buy a couple of 3870's instead and wait to see how fusion pans out by mid 2009.

Xbit Labs on fusion:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20071216231717...

Quote:

“The first APU platform is code-named Swift. It gives you the choice of technologies for high-confidence volume production ramp. We want to re-use as much [IP] as possible to accelerate our quality [qualification] and time to market. So, we have an AMD Stars CPU core, the graphics core that is based on the present high-end discrete GPU core and leverages the North Bridge that is presently found in Griffin, the CPU of the Puma platform. It will be our second 45nm generation product, so the maturity of the [production technology] will be proven. It is done on the current SOI design rules, which is the process that we know how to build on very well,” Mr. Rivas explained.

Initially the company indicated that Fusion processors “are expected in late 2008/early 2009”, and the company anticipated to use them within all of the chipmaker’s “priority computing categories”, including laptops, desktops, workstations and servers, as well as in “consumer electronics and solutions tailored for the unique needs of emerging markets”. A little later the company said that the first-generation of Fusion chips will be aimed at laptops and that production will start in early 2009. This time AMD claims that the actual chips will reach the market only in the second half of 2009, which may mean that the product will only be launched commercially in Q4 2009. Still, the company said that it is minimizing all the risks hopes to really deliver the product on time.

“By optimizing the choice of IP blocks we have less risks and faster time to market in the second half of 2009,” claimed , executive vice president of computing solutions group at AMD.


IMHO, Intel won't do a darned thing unless the market forces them to, and the market right now is AMD/ATI CPU's, chipsets and coming fusion. Nvidia won't be a factor until Intel brings out their discrete GPU's. Expect some Intel dirty tricks where they lock out Nvidia and ATI discrete GPU's on Intel chipsets once they have a full line of discrete GPU's up and running.

So, buy Intel if you want, but don't kvetch too much about their delays due to AMD's failures. AMD has vision and tries for the improbable. They get flamed for sitting pretty during X2 and not putting enough into R&D, but the flamers seldom had a bad thing to say about Intel during the Netburst days.

atomicWAR said:
no matter how you fry this bacon up it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth...and just yesterday i said what a bad time it was for a build. apperantly timing just got worse. merry christmas everyone!!!!


Yes, indeed. We have two AMD systems that I was going to upgrade, but it didn't pan out because of three reasons:

1: The X3870 is virtually unavailable (I wanted the 1 gig version anyways).

2: Hybrid Crossfire won't be out in the U.S. before March, and the first incarnation won't have the power saving features, and won't work with any cards above the X3400 series anyways. I had hoped that, while it gave a 60% improvement with entry level cards, it would give both power savings and a 10% improvement with the midrange GPUs.

3. Phenom is a bust at 65nm. So, I'll just upgrade my AM2 boards with 2.9 gigahertz 65watt Brisbanes first quarter of 2008 instead. I'll wait for fusion at 45nm instead of going Phenom this spring.

I'll still try to find the X3870's for our two systems after the one gig version arrives. If worse comes to worse, I can always get the regular 512 meg version or, as an absolute last resort, two X3850's with 512 megs.

Makes you think that both companies wanted to get rid of old inventory for the holidays. Add Nvidia to the list too. I don't know how many people went for the older 8800GTS when the 8800GT wasn't available. Ideally, old tech should be marked down once new GPU's hit the market in force, but the release of ATI and Nvidia's new cards are sort of papier-mache.
December 19, 2007 1:54:05 PM

Sorry about the double post, I'm correcting it now.
December 19, 2007 2:57:45 PM

thematrixhazuneo said:
My opinion would be that there was an alternative reason for the delay other than 'competition' Honestly, if Intel was able to push the 45nm out now they would, first and foremost they will be getting more proc. per wafer, making more money for them. Remember we are talking about companies with bean counters here, regardless if you like AMD or Intel.


The "bean counters" comment is spot on, but you missed the big one here: the more volume Intel gets out of 65nm, the more they get to run on equipment and tooling that's already bought and paid for, and half-depreciated. While 45nm saves money in the long run, ramping 45nm to high-volume manufacturing at multiple sites worldwide costs a substantial amount of startup cash. If they can postpone a significant amount of this startup cost because their current product slate is already more than competitive at the older process node (which it is), they can essentially bank the cash they would have spent on the ramp for a couple of quarters and make their bottom line look even better.

Yorkfield may indeed have some minor errata, but Intel would microcode it away without flinching if they had to for market reasons. AMD simply has not given them a market reason to rush things and spend the extra money.
December 19, 2007 3:03:15 PM

"3. Phenom is a bust at 65nm. So, I'll just upgrade my AM2 boards with 2.9 gigahertz 65watt Brisbanes first quarter of 2008 instead. I'll wait for fusion at 45nm instead of going Phenom this spring."From yipsl
The thing is most people who have the Phenom do like it ,with the black edition it will look even better .Intel has a problem with the cpu thats a fact which has been out for about a week now.I t'hink the X48 are being held for this reason.Also dont for get there's a war going on btwn Intel and Nvidia
December 19, 2007 3:15:07 PM

Why would Intel be having problems with there 45nm cpu's when they have already got there highest clocked version working fine. All they need to do is lower and lock the multiplier.
December 19, 2007 3:19:58 PM

gpippas said:
Why would Intel be having problems with there 45nm cpu's when they have already got there highest clocked version working fine. All they need to do is lower and lock the multiplier.



Same thing could be said about AMD. AMD's bug isn't a huge deal to most desktop users is it? It hasn't really caused a ton of problems in the desktop realm.

Intel's problem is a rumor and no official statement has been released from them regarding it. Maybe that's how AMD should've played things.
December 19, 2007 3:33:27 PM

cnumartyr said:
Same thing could be said about AMD. AMD's bug isn't a huge deal to most desktop users is it? It hasn't really caused a ton of problems in the desktop realm.

Intel's problem is a rumor and no official statement has been released from them regarding it. Maybe that's how AMD should've played things.


I agree the errata in Phenoms has been blown out of proportion. In the desktop it hasn't caused any problems. As for hiding it I don't they could have done. Not with Opterons being identical. I think in the server space where reliability is key it would have been found out or they would have had to disclose it. It wouldn't take long for people to start questioning as to whether the errata is in all K10 cpu's.

The clocks however is different. Although AMD is blaming the errata for the clock speeds I don't think this is entirely the case. Intel have shown how high they can clock there 45nm cpu's with room to spare for overclocking. AMD on the other hand has shown us how low they can clock Phenom.LOL
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2007 4:19:01 PM

All the extreme editions are are the highest binned of the penryn line. Intel didnt have a problem getting the qx9650 out i dont see how they would have problems with the lower binned cpus. AMD with is working the other way around. They release a lower clocked cpu and work there way up to higher clocks.
December 19, 2007 4:25:25 PM

Intel is correct in stating that they have no pressing need to release new processors at this point, but this still sucks for us. I hope (but doubt) that the B3 Phenom steppings will be all that AMD has claimed them to be, and then some. We need competition so bad, and all the while AMD is down to $7.68 a share.

As I side note, I guess that Intel would like to take this extra time that AMD has given them to further refine Penryn and squash every bug that they can. Remember, 45nm processors are cheaper to make than 65nm processors, so Intel has nothing to lose by switching over as soon as possible.

Side note #2: To MrsBytch, who stated that Penryn requires new chipsets, please take that BS somewhere else. Your FUD is not welcome here.
December 19, 2007 4:30:31 PM

It makes perfect sense for Intel to milk 65nm for everything it's worth as long as AMD can't keep up. Every month of 65nm production is another month of amortization on the 65nm equipment. The tax implications are no small factor in this decision.
December 19, 2007 4:32:11 PM

Basically there are three sides (actually 4)that have to be balanced. The marketing side, the technical side and the public perception side(the legal issues must be thought of "anti-trust"). Most of the post here have been leaning toward a single side. PR departments are caught in the middle and MOST times are NOT a part of the marketing side as a lot of people believe;especially in large organizations like INTEL. By backing down from their scheduled release the marketing side takes a back seat and the PR dept comes in for damage control while the legal side makes sure the company not only covers it rear, but looks good while doing so. (I was anticipating moving up to a Q9450 in Jan-but fortunately I bought a boxed Q6600 & MB on Black Friday from Frys for under $200 )

Intel needs AMD for ANTI-TRUST reasons. They can not blow them out of the water by overpowering their technology ability. It is a delicate balance they must maintain. I would be a suprise if they came to their rescue but not unheard of in this market. Rember a few years ago when Bil Gates loaned/gave APPLE a huge sum to remain competitive? That is the nature of competition/capitalism/avoidance of monopoly stature here in America with American based companies. Intel may or may not be having problems. The PR story is one on managed information. There are news releases already written to basically respond to any public reaction/senario that comes out of this situation. These guys think in terms of the end game not flying by the seat of their pants and giving knee-jerk responses. If I were in their good situation right now I would do the same thing while taking the time to perfect current and emerging technology. Their 45nm parts will probably have greater yields come release time(and maybe even a better stepping). Also do not forget that Intel is more than just a processor company; they are highly diversified, much more so than AMD. They can wait it out and still have abundant income from their other businesses.

The argument concerning their tier 1 MB partners is also valid a Good BIOS takes time. In the end if AMD goes down this way it will NOT be because INTEL pushed them out of business, but because AMD was not able to keep up technologically and this PR release is proff that Intel held back and did not pile on. They gave the competition time to breathe and prepare to be competitive. Smart move to keep them out of harms way legally.

Back to my Q6600. Glad I purchased it, now I have no qualms about putting it in my ASUS Maximum Formuls SE over the holidays it might be a long wait for the CPU that was intended for it.
December 19, 2007 5:05:47 PM

I've been waiting to buy one of the new quads and this annoys me greatly as I would've just purchased a kentsfield a couple months ago if I knew that I'd have to wait even longer. I hope intel gives some sort of official statement on this soon so I know for sure if I should just get a Q6600 or not.
December 19, 2007 5:17:39 PM

I'm exactly inthe same boat, DaveElls. I'm just figurng out a way to get mess around with my prehistoric PentD 915 to make it through to Nehilem!
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
December 19, 2007 5:22:16 PM

Bill Gates made a fortune for Microsoft shareholders when he bought that piece of Apple. :) 

He also saved Corel some years ago. You guys may not have heard much about that, but where I live Corel was the second largest IT employer at the time and it was front page news. Very weird too, considering that Corel's CEO at the time was declaring final war on both Word and Windows at the time.

I wonder if Intel could/should help AMD. Would that make any sense, or just raise even more anti-trust issues?

a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 19, 2007 6:07:22 PM

Why Intel is delaying the Yorkfeild we really don't know. Hell for all we know it could truly be because AMD has no competition and Intel wants to release Yorkfeild when they get the B3 Phenoms out to have a good set to compete against.

Or it could be Intel does want to work out the errata. We will probably never know. Either way Intel can afford the time right now but AMD can't afford anything they are doing as they don't have the superior product like the A64 was.
December 19, 2007 6:08:49 PM

archibael said:
The "bean counters" comment is spot on, but you missed the big one here: the more volume Intel gets out of 65nm, the more they get to run on equipment and tooling that's already bought and paid for, and half-depreciated. While 45nm saves money in the long run, ramping 45nm to high-volume manufacturing at multiple sites worldwide costs a substantial amount of startup cash.


Indeed. No company wants to waste a lot of money releasing a new product which obsoletes their old ones, if there's no reason to do so... it's not just bad for profits, but potentially harms relationships with OEMs if they're stuck with old chips which are no longer so valuable.

Since Intel's current chips can already compete with Phenom, they have precisely zero reason to rush new ones to the market. But you can be pretty sure they will be out to decisively beat AMD as soon as Phenom is properly released.

Which kind of sucks from my viewpoint, as I'm not intending to replace my P4 system until Nehalem.

Meanwhile, let the AMD fanboys bitch about maybe, possible, rumored Intel bugs so they can pretend AMD don't have very real Phenom bugs.
December 19, 2007 6:19:21 PM

MarkG said:

Meanwhile, let the AMD fanboys bitch about maybe, possible, rumored Intel bugs so they can pretend AMD don't have very real Phenom bugs.

I would point out there has been no "AMD Fanboy bitching" on this thread.
It was actually myself that made the point I thought Intel were selling bullshit...
There was some agreement, but we're all welcome to our own opinion!
I have made my point clearly, with argument from what I think the reasoning is and i guess I could be regarded as a "fanboy" does that make my opinion less valuable?
Anyhoo back to the discussion...
I personally don't think the anti-competition laws are much thought about there... If Intel could release crushing CPUs (and lets face it, they are high-end and unlikely to be bought by people who buy uni-boxs, where AMD still has a very strong showing with X2's) then I can see no reason why they wouldn't...
I can't imagine them being released at a price point that would drag people en masse from buying the (and I'll even admit this! ;) ) very competitively priced Q6600.
It's economic madness to let a product that is ready for release, sit there gathering dust as it becomes obsolete!
December 19, 2007 6:26:40 PM

LukeBird said:
I would point out there has been no "AMD Fanboy bitching" on this thread.


I guess you missed all the 'LOL! Intel are just trying to hide their 45nm bugs!' posts.

Quote:
It's economic madness to let a product that is ready for release, sit there gathering dust as it becomes obsolete!


There's a reason why you're not running Intel. Why exactly are chips which will easily beat the best of AMD's _unreleased_ chips 'becoming obsolete'?

The only thing that will make them obsolete is Nehalem, unless AMD produce something particularly impressive in the meantime. But if AMD do, then Intel will just release Nehalem and it's back to square one.

As I said, they have precisely zero reason to release now, when the only competition is their own chips. Only lunatics obsolete their own products for no reason, when they're currently the best in the market.
December 19, 2007 6:36:23 PM

This makes sense and doesn't make sense. Intel has a dedicated, fully ramped 45nm factory (or should at this point - F32). I don't know how many 65nm fabs they have, but it's almost definitely more than 1. If they convert all product SKUs over to 45nm, they don't have enough factories up to meet the current demand. So they're slowly converting/building their fleet and the one current fab is either just trying to release ultra extreme edition CPUs, or is stock piling the normal CPUs so that Intel has enough chips on hand not to see shortages when they release all SKUs. This is finite though as holding extra inventory has issues (and maybe older 130/90/65nm parts still have some inventory that Intel would like to blow out).

This announcement, I guess, doesn't mean Intel will be halting any plans of moving forward (since having their whole line doing 45nm brings Intel cost wins as they're cheaper to make). It just means that they'll wait a little bit before releasing the chips they're currently producing. If AMD is far enough behind, Intel may be able to just end of life tons of SKUs at one particular time and start selling all the 45nm parts. *shrug*

The other issue is that this isn't official. Intel would certainly never say we're delaying our chips because AMD sucks - even if it's the truth (which it is - AMD's way behind). It would be bad PR to say "hey, our competitor is so far behind, even if customers want new and improved functionality/power/performance, we'll just sit and wait".
December 19, 2007 6:45:35 PM

1773347,46,63059 said:
I guess you missed all the 'LOL! Intel are just trying to hide their 45nm bugs!' posts.


I agree I don't think there has been any fanboy bitching in this thread. Its one of the most civilised threads I seen on Tom's in a while. I would like you to quote where you have seen these 'LOL! Intel are just trying to hide their 45nm bugs!' posts in this thread.
December 19, 2007 6:50:39 PM

Yah. Your right. This has been one of the most civilized and bitch-less threads around. So...

Hector Ruiz and thereby AMD is single handedly responsble for global warming, bird flu, mad cow, tainted cat food, crime in the streets, the price of gasoline, pimples, chicks who call you impotent in front of your friends, and guys who sell you car stereos on Ebay and ship you a box of rocks. Everyone ever asociated with AMD must be tortured to death on prime time televsion.

I hope I have restoerd the balance. :) 
December 19, 2007 6:53:06 PM

Just read the xbitslabs article. They must have been reading my posts.LOL. I said the exact same thing near the beginning of this thread.

Even though they say there is a defect I can't see that it would be a major issue otherwise the QX9650 wouldn't have been released.
!