I finally managed to get one or another link on the frequency headroom that the current A64s have. Here's a quote from <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040205093054.html" target="_new">anandtech</A>:
Quote :
On the other hand, AMD is using its time-proven 130nm (0.13 micron) process for its current and some future processors. Even though it means that the company is not going to run into serious process-related problems with yields and costs, it also implies that there is no huge clock-frequency headroom for AMD with its current manufacturing technology. Given that 2.40GHz is likely to be the last speed bin for 130nm SOI process, AMD will have to utilize 90nm nodes for 2.60GHz and faster chips. AMD’s transfer to 130nm process was not an easy one, just like AMD’s first experiments with 130nm SOI technology. Therefore, there are quite a lot of concerns in regards AMD’s ability to successfully ramp up mass production using 90nm SOI technology in the firm’s Fab 30 in Dresden, Germany, later this year.
So, this year will probably be a messy one, as Intel cleans up the prescott core and the 90nm process in order to get Scotty up and doing what it's supposed to do (fly at high frequencies) and AMD transitions to 90nm.
The 2.4Ghz AMD processors will probably be the top performers from AMD for the better part of the year, it would seem. (3700+ and FX53)
As for the 3700+ vs 3.6Ghz, I still have a small hope that the guys at Intel get reasonable and get a 3.73Ghz Scotty out. To level the playing grounds... I don't see a 3.6Ghz defeating a 2.4Ghz AMD processor easily...
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 02/07/04 12:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
It depends on which will become more popular amongst to-be-released softwares in 2004. Hyperthreading or 64bit.
From current trend it will be advantage HT.
That's just Anand's speculation, and what would he know ? Seriously, he is getting it backwards: he thinks 2.4 GHz is the fastest speed grade achieveable on 130nm SOI, just because AMD expects anything faster to be on 90nm. That reasoning makes no sense; there are other reasons AMD wants to move to 90nm than just his supposition (is that a word ?)that 130nm is limited to 2.4. Even if they could scale 130nm K8's to, let's say, 4 or 5Ghz, they would still never be produced, because by that time, AMD will produce 90nm or 65nm ones instead.
Mark my words, if AMD has trouble with 90nm, they will squeeze out faster than 2.4 GHz chips on 130nm. Porbably at the cost of yields, but they have always managed to do this with any core, and always beaten expectations. Think Tbred-b, Palomino, etc..
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Mark my words, if AMD has trouble with 90nm, they will squeeze out faster than 2.4 GHz chips on 130nm. Porbably at the cost of yields, but they have always managed to do this with any core, and always beaten expectations. Think Tbred-b, Palomino, etc.
Exactly like Intel and the 3.4Ghz Northwood that never should have been, eh?...
I think it all remains to be seen... However, it is pretty clear that they can, at least, get 2.4Ghz out of current processes.
Yeah but faster that 2.6 is close to impossible.K7 dont goes much higher either.2005 Q1 for 90NM is more realistic if you ask me.Can you get me a CPU lately that dont have been delay.
"Exactly like Intel and the 3.4Ghz Northwood that never should have been, eh?...
I think it all remains to be seen... However, it is pretty clear that they can, at least, get 2.4Ghz out of current processes."
Yeah....(sorry for not using correct quotes above)
AMD is planning another major stepping before 90nm. Nothing says they won't also be able to improve performance/clocking. Remember when they went to 130nm? The first steppings weren't any faster than the 180nm, but 3 mon ths later they had a new stepping that scaled much better.
In the final analysis, I think much depends on how the 90nm transition goes. If it goes well and they can release chips by mid Q3 they will probably not worry about scaling the 130nm products past 2.4ghz...unless Intel comes out with a 3.8ghz product early, in which case, AMD will likely cherry pick enough to release a 2.6ghz variant on 130nm.
Keep in mind though, that just a month or so ago, most enthusiast sites were suggesting that AMD would probably keep the performance crown for all of 2004 and into 2005.
Time will tell, but this is how I think things will go.
AMD will release a 2.4ghz version in Q2 or late Q1 both FX and standard A64.
AMD will release a 2.6ghz cpu by mid Q3...perhaps even in late Q2
AMD will release a 2.8ghz chip before end of 2004.
Perhaps I am a bit optimistic, but I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest otherwise. In fact, so far, AMD has kept up with plan (as far as I know it) since A64 was released, coming out with a new 3000+ and then following with a 3400+...all in the 3 months following initial release.
Since it takes around 12 weeks from start to finish, to fab a CPU it stands to reason that as AMD tweaks the chip and process, that each quarter would see improvements in yield and speed grades.
Mark-
<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by zengeos on 02/08/04 09:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
AMD will release a 2.4ghz version in Q2 or late Q1 both FX and standard A64.
AMD will release a 2.8ghz cpu by mid Q3...perhaps even in late Q2
AMD will release a 3ghz chip before end of 2004.
I don't think that optimistic is exactly the right word to describe your prediction. IMO you are far beyond optimism here!
The 2.4Ghz AMD processors will probably be the top performers from AMD for the better part of the year, it would seem. (3700+ and FX53)
As for the 3700+ vs 3.6Ghz ...
Please correct me here if I am wrong but isn't it supposed to be FX-53 vs Prescott 3.6GHz? The 3700+ is part of their "value" line of processors, remember? I don't know about you, but I don't consider the P4EE a desktop CPU. The 3.4GHz one costs more than $1000, when the FX-53 will be quite cheaper than the FX-51 because of S939. The only reason I see for AMD to keep their prices high for that CPU is because they have no competition right now from Intel. But still, I don't think they will ask as much as they ask now for the FX-51.
And even if Intel manages to convince everyone that their top-of-the-line Prescott is actually fighting against the 3700+ (so their CPU won't be consider a clear loser), they will have a real problem when a 2.6GHz A64 will be released, since it will most probably be manufactured only for the dual-channel memory controller S939.
AMD will release a 2.4ghz version in Q2 or late Q1 both FX and standard A64.
AMD will release a 2.8ghz cpu by mid Q3...perhaps even in late Q2
AMD will release a 3ghz chip before end of 2004.
Even if the could, and I'm not saying it's impossible, what would be the reason? All they need to do is keep a little ahead of intel. Releasing a 3ghz before 2004 would be economical suicide IMO.
It depends on which will become more popular amongst to-be-released softwares in 2004. Hyperthreading or 64bit.
From current trend it will be advantage HT.
Did you see A64's performance at media encoding, under WinXP 64bit using a 32bit application? It gained 15% just because of the OS. At first I wasn't really sure about the performance gains of AMD64 but now I am really excited about it. Imagine what will happen when a 64bit application will be used, on the final Windows version, with the latest chipset drivers and everything!
And I know that some of you will say that it sucked at games but what's important IMO is that the A64 showed real performance gains where CPU and memory performance mattered. When it comes to games, I assume that 99% is because of the drivers (video card/AGP), which is a problem that can be "easily" solved.
Please correct me here if I am wrong but isn't it supposed to be FX-53 vs Prescott 3.6GHz? The 3700+ is part of their "value" line of processors, remember?
Well, not really... It's more like the FX processors being on their "Expensive" line of processors. 3200+ and 3400+ are price-targeted against the 3.2E and 3.4E... This is not a value line at all.
As for FX-53... I don't really know if S939 FXs will be much cheaper... Why should they?... (I really don't know)
Quote :
they will have a real problem when a 2.6GHz A64 will be released, since it will most probably be manufactured only for the dual-channel memory controller S939.
Yes, but according to current estimates, AMD will only reach 2.6Ghz with 90nm processes. This means, basically, that it'll probably be late 2004... By then, Intel will reportedly have 4Ghz Prescotts out, with "wide support" - if they can get it - for high-bandwidth DDR-II... But it'll all depend on a lot of factors that we can't really predict right now.
DDR2 is expect to cost twice as much as there DDR conterpart.Increasing the NB of pin on the mothersboards.Socket 939 will bring smaller A64 with 512 L2 it will just to be extra money for AMD i dont think they make a lot of money on a 100 million CPU on 130 NM SOI just the cost of SOI is huge.90nm for Intel wont be in mass production before a while and even more time before it right for big clock speed increase.For AMD 90NM micron process dont get surprise if they get delay until 2005 1H.I dont expect much before the end of the year.
Right, I already knew that part. But there's nothing saying that it won't be priced above $700 like the extremely pricey ($750) FX-51, so I think it'll still be above my budget, for example. And I suspect it'll still be pretty expensive for most.
DDR2 is expected to cost twice as much in Q1, but I'd expect some price reductions to the end of the year... wouldn't you?...
As for AMD's 90nm process being delayed... well, there's no indication that they're on time and there's no indication of a delay; however, if I had to guess, I'd say AMD will only really get into 90nm in 2005 too.
I thought Newcastle was a cost-effective solution... the A64 3000+, that is.
I don't know... Truly cost-effective solutions using S939 will probably exist, once AMD64 processors have been around for a little longer and newer processors come into play. Say, when they get the 3700+ out... Then there'll be a price reduction as well.
Quote :
Maybe with 512k or 256k L2 cache instead of 1 MB.
Exactly, like newcastle: A64 3000+. It already exists and is priced at around $215±5, the lowest-priced A64...
Hopefully, however, AMD won't get into too much of a confusion with its PR ratings... 3000+ at 2.0Ghz, 512KB L2; 3200+ at 2.0Ghz, 1MB L2, 3400+ at 2.2Ghz, 1MB L2... If they want a 2.2Ghz with 512KB L2, they'll have to rate it as another 3200+... And it'll probably go on like that, and that is the problem. Newcastle will overlap with sledgehammers, and it always will. So maybe they could reinvent the name "Duron 64" for Newcastle? It would ease the confusion a bit, who knows...
