Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel at it again..

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 30, 2004 5:58:37 AM

Delays, paper launches,..
<A HREF="http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040729/tech_intel_delay_2.html" target="_new">4 GHz P4 delayed</A>
<A HREF="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5289467.html" target="_new">Intel short on 3.6GHz chips</A>

None of this should surprise anyone though, not from the company that claimed right up to last christmass prescott would be shipping for volume in 2003


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

More about : intel

July 30, 2004 7:22:31 AM

And the list goes <A HREF="http://news.com.com/Intel+chip+glitch+hobbles+server+ad..." target="_new"> on and on and on.. </A>

Just curious, does anyone here own intel stock ?
Just put up a poll on this one, go <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> here </A>

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by P4man on 07/30/04 03:28 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
July 30, 2004 12:31:36 PM

how is it that Intel, with their huge market share and enormous revenue sources keep screwing up, when AMD appears to keep a very steady and progressive string of successes running?
July 30, 2004 12:44:33 PM

AMD isn't perfect and isn't without its troubles, however. Keep that in mind. Last I heard, their 90nm products weren't coming until 2005, at least in any volume...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
July 30, 2004 1:05:10 PM

Because Intel actually pushes forward and tries new processes. Got an 90nm Athlons on the shelf?
July 30, 2004 1:18:56 PM

>Because Intel actually pushes forward and tries new
>processes. Got an 90nm Athlons on the shelf?

What a nonsense claim. Intel "pushes forward", because its cheaper for intel to move to newer technolgies faster. Simply because they have the highest volume in the industry, the economy of scale makes it financially more interesting to them to move to 300mm and/or smaller process than anyone else.. AMD typically shifts ~6-12 months later, but since it only has a single Fab, it converts nearly 100% of its production capacity to the new process within a couple of months.. very much unlike Intel that still has 18 and 25nm fabs today, if memory serves.

Now I agree intel is pretty much the lonely number 1 when it comes to fabbing, but if we have'nt seen 90nm athlons yet, its because it was cheaper for AMD to start converting 6 months later, not because they are less capable or something.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 30, 2004 1:50:55 PM

Quote:
but if we have'nt seen 90nm athlons yet, its because it was cheaper for AMD to start converting 6 months later, not because they are less capable or something.

Actually, I'd bet it's because AMD just doesn't want to mess with it until other people figure out the problems for them. Intel's initial products using it weren't so spectacular, and even IBM's aren't looking like they have the head room that people had expected from the initial speeds they had going. If the leakage problem is proving to be so bad that even SOI isn't the best of solutions, then you know there has to be some worrying going on in the AMD camp. Why use what little resources available when other people with more resources and experience will eventually solve it for you? It's not like anyone else is able to use the process <i>yet</i> to actually push for higher clock speeds.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
July 30, 2004 3:01:27 PM

Quote:
Why use what little resources available when other people with more resources and experience will eventually solve it for you?

That's exactly what I think AMD is doing. When intel entered the 90nm process, it was new and uncharted territory... AMD is now doing the same, but they now know exactly what problems they'll face, or even a solution thereof.
Quote:
not because they are less capable or something.

Yessir, they are less capable. They are less capable of spending money, which in turn makes them less capable of keeping up with adversity.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
July 30, 2004 4:50:10 PM

Oh no not a delay, best be on the watch for AMD's empty promises. Hmm how many years was the Athlon 64 delayed?

Pure dribble IMO.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Xeon on 07/30/04 12:50 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 30, 2004 5:29:45 PM

Quote:
Actually, I'd bet it's because AMD just doesn't want to mess with it until other people figure out the problems for them. Intel's initial products using it weren't so spectacular, and even IBM's aren't looking like they have the head room that people had expected from the initial speeds they had going.

Actually, as I recall, AMD went to help IBM mess with it. Supposedly one of the goals of the Fishkill partnership was to cooperate on new process technologies. Since both AMD and IBM are using SOI, and both needed 90nm refinement, the partnership made sense.

AMD just didn't bother to get their own 90nm ramp going until they'd got it right. That, too, was sensible; it wouldn't do for a relatively small, fab-strapped company like AMD to publicly flub 90nm and then try to ram the flubbed product down the market's throat.

AMD's generally a step or two behind Intel in process technologies, but don't let that fool you into thinking AMD process engineering talent isn't top-notch. I suspect AMD process engineers are every bit as good as Intel's, if not better. AMD is just constrained as to money and fab space.

<i>"Intel's ICH6R SouthBridge, now featuring RAID -1"

"RAID-minus-one?"

"Yeah. You have two hard drives, neither of which can actually boot."</i>
July 30, 2004 5:36:52 PM

but you can agree tht intel and amd both have problems pushing out thier new products on time, it isnt confined to one company or another.

amd has less to work with, so tahts thier excuse. intel has too much to work with, and i think someitmes they get ahed of themselves, so thats thier excuse. niether is better or worse at cpu design and engineering, it comes donw to money and fab production. intel could have a flop and roll right past it and move on, amd doesnt have that luxury.

and one question. when exactly does the 3rd quarter end and the 4th quarter begin?
July 30, 2004 7:26:43 PM

Quote:
and one question. when exactly does the 3rd quarter end and the 4th quarter begin?

Q1 = Jan. to March
Q2 = April to June
Q3 = July to Sept.
Q4 = Oct. to Dec.

--
Asus A7N8X / <font color=green><b>AMD Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green> (tbred @ 167x12)
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Built by ATI Radeon 8500LE 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290
July 30, 2004 7:33:24 PM

Whats an Intel...? anybody ? I think I saw one of those before but dismissed it as a government ploy..I mean toy.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Air Cooled 45C
2x512 Corsair DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
July 30, 2004 8:20:59 PM

ok thank you, so at this point, amd is not behind schedual wiht its 90nm parts, they have until the end of september a si thought. this has been thier target since late 03/early 04.
July 30, 2004 8:32:12 PM

They're not behind schedule on paper, but don't expect any volume on those processors at all <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040419071508..." target="_new">before 2005</A>; it's not an easy transition! Take a look:
Quote:
While AMD may not be in a position to sell AMD Athlon 64 4000+ and AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 SKUs produced using 90nm process technology this year, the Sunnyvale, California-based microprocessor maker may still be able to sell its high-performance chips, e.g. AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and AMD Athlon 64 FX-53, produced at 130nm nodes. Intel also has certain issues with its 90nm process technology and may find itself being unable to supply its Intel Pentium 4 processors at 4.00GHz in late 2004. If this happens, AMD’s longer than expected 90nm introduction will not affect the company’s financial results for fiscal 2004.


In any case, the next interesting thing will be how those 64-bit-enabled P4s do in some tests, as soon as the software for it becomes available...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 07/30/04 07:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 30, 2004 10:22:50 PM

I read some stuff somewhere that claimed AMD would first do a straight shrink of current 130nm A64's, and somewhere next year, they would release a redesign with extra metal layers, a bit like tbredA -> Tbred B. If true, that could mean initial 90nm products will not be stellar clockers, but the main advantage will be cost (smaller die) and possibly lower power. Only next year will AMD reap the clock benefit (again, if true). This approach makes some sense IMHO, since AMD's main problem is production capacity and cost, not so much performance.

..just something to consider when in a few months we start seeing 90nm parts that don't clock higher than 130nm one's, so don't be too quick to shout "amd is having trouble with 90nm as well". I think/fear we will see another Tbred sort of launch where everybody thought AMD's 130nm was broken, and Athlon hit a brick wall. We all know how true that turned out..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 31, 2004 3:00:54 AM

well they have till september to prove xbit wrong, lets see who is right then...
July 31, 2004 4:35:07 AM

(((They're not behind schedule on paper, but don't expect any volume on those processors at all before 2005; it's not an easy transition! Take a look:
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While AMD may not be in a position to sell AMD Athlon 64 4000+ and AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 SKUs produced using 90nm process technology this year, the Sunnyvale, California-based microprocessor maker may still be able to sell its high-performance chips, e.g. AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and AMD Athlon 64 FX-53, produced at 130nm nodes. Intel also has certain issues with its 90nm process technology and may find itself being unable to supply its Intel Pentium 4 processors at 4.00GHz in late 2004. If this happens, AMD’s longer than expected 90nm introduction will not affect the company’s financial results for fiscal 2004.)))


That article is dated in april and is talking about desktop chips. AMD's priorities are servers first (opteron) mobile chips 2nd and desktops 3rd. Amd will be producing 3 opterons on 90 nm in second half. (athens troy and venus) 1 mobile on 90nm (oakvile) and 1 desktop 90nm winchester. AMD is producing these chips now expect to see a64 4000+ 90nm @ 2.6 giz in stores by october. Its interesting that 90nm adds a 5% performance improvement over 130nm at same clock speed. sse3 and a few other things.



If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
July 31, 2004 2:04:05 PM

I read that take on SSE3, however, I find that that must be a feature-driven addition.

I mean, AMD <i>cannot</i> say that they fully implemented SSE3 at all. Some SSE3 instructions relate to HT, which simply isn't there for A64, as far as I understand it. Am I wrong?...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
July 31, 2004 4:25:35 PM

AMD cannot say that they fully implemented SSE3 at all. Some SSE3 instructions relate to HT

True I read that sse3 is somehow conected to HT and a64 will not have HT. 2 of the 13 new instruction relate to hyperthreading so I'd guess the a64 on 90nm will utalize 11 of them.

We will just have to wait and see the benchies. I wonder if those 2 HT related instructions will work on dual core.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 1, 2004 2:48:42 AM

I would also like to add some more interesting Intel news.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=211..." target="_new">Tejas not dead, just renamed</A>

"Absent are Tejas, and other experimental processor cores (from which we hear are not dead, just renamed). Of course we will add moreas we learn them! Below are AMD's code names."

------
Prescott 3.0E 1MB L2 HT
1GB PC 3200 Dual channel(PAT)
Asus P4P800 Bios 1016
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
58,556 Aquamarks
August 1, 2004 3:43:18 AM

Here is more interesting news. will next generation be <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040731144157..." target="_new"> 90nm or 130nm </A>

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 08/01/04 00:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 1, 2004 4:27:28 AM

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040731144157..." target="_new">-Clickety Fixed-</A> (please be careful not to put linebreaks in your clicketies.)

<i>"Intel's ICH6R SouthBridge, now featuring RAID -1"

"RAID-minus-one?"

"Yeah. You have two hard drives, neither of which can actually boot."</i>
August 1, 2004 4:39:40 AM

tanks

and its now fixed

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 1, 2004 7:17:27 AM

Doesn't seem likely, does it ? Intel officially said they canned it, why would they do that if they merely renamed it ? Anand is probably confused; netburst aint dead yet, and some of the features originally reserved for Tejas are being brought to Prescott (2MB cache, 1066 MHz FSB,..). Prescott core is dead, even the team is dismantled which is all the proof I need.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 1, 2004 2:23:20 PM

They could just put two northwood execution cores with the amount of transistors there are in prescott. Just imagine if Prescott was in fact a dual-core northwood....

But instead, Intel seems to have crammed a lot of transistors which are useless for the end user as of now. I mean, logic transistor count more than doubled from NW to Prescott, and where are the benefits?... (except as a heater)... I can't even be convinced that two revamped NW cores would have much more than the thermal output of a single prescott core...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 1, 2004 5:38:16 PM

Quote:
Prescott core is dead, even the team is dismantled which is all the proof I need.


Errr... you meant to say Tejas, right? I mean if Prescott were dead... Intel wouldn't still be producing it.

:smile:

(Technically I suppose you could say it is dead... since so far it hasn't been the stellar success everyone was hoping for).

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
August 1, 2004 11:16:18 PM

>Errr... you meant to say Tejas, right?

Yes, obviously.. too much booze, not enough sleep :) 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 1, 2004 11:20:33 PM

>They could just put two northwood execution cores with the
>amount of transistors there are in prescott.

yeah, but it wouldnt be as small, and it wouldn't support EM64T. Two damn good reasons not to.

> I can't even be convinced that two revamped NW cores would
>have much more than the thermal output of a single prescott
>core...

You're stretching here. NW is a decent amount cooler, but definately not 2x. Do the math if you like, compare Banias with Dothan to see what 130nm->90nm brings, apply that to NW's numbers, I don't think you'll get close to your estimate.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
!