thoroughbred desktop for june.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Rob423

Rob423

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2002
2,809
0
20,810
Thanks alot, We still have the "Hammer Coming into play, so be careful!! you could buy the 533mhz FSB CPU for probly over 600$ and i'll stick with AMD and get more for the MONEY!

Measure Twice, Cut Once!!
 
F

FatBurger

Illustrious
Jun 1, 2001
13,625
1
40,780
Two more months? Ouch. I wonder how much longer Hammer will be delayed?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
 
P

pvsurfer

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2001
395
0
18,780
I agree, and for that matter, good luck vs. the (soon to be much cheaper) Northwood 400FSBs!

<b>God bless the <font color=red>U</font color=red><font color=white>S</font color=white><font color=blue>A</font color=blue></b>
 
J

juin

Distinguished
May 19, 2001
3,323
0
20,780
2 month for desktop maybe not for mobile last time PAL was release way sonner for mobile like Intel have update P3 to 0.13 way faster that P4

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
 
K

Kemche

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2001
284
0
18,780
May be the rumors about AMD's .13u process technology in trouble was probably true.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
 
K

Kemche

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2001
284
0
18,780
Hi juin,

I don't know exactly when the PAL was released, but when it was released there was an article posted on the wed which said Intel did some digging in PAL and found out that AMD was using .13u technology in it's processor. I don't know if this was true or not. But I didn't see any article from AMD which said they didn't so I assumed that it was true.

Anyways, May be that's why AMD is having such a hardtime producing .13u T-bred. What I am trying to say is they probably used .13u in XP and now they can't get anything else out of the .13u for the Athlon Core. What ever it is I wish AMD would say something about it. What kind of trouble are they having etc.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
 
Z

zengeos

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2001
921
0
18,980
Yes I read the same rumors.

Apparently the .13 conversion is progressing just fine. HOWEVER< changes needed to the Athlon tracings, and the like are not finished and that's what's holding it up.

OTOH, I read from an AMD exec that production was ramping up very nicely. If Athlon needs core changes then WHAT production is actually ramping?

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
 
F

FatBurger

Illustrious
Jun 1, 2001
13,625
1
40,780
That's apparently not true, although there was no official announcement either way.

If they were using partial .13 technology, then the Thoroughbred would already be out.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
 
R

Raystonn

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2001
2,273
0
19,780
The fact that they were mixing 0.13 technology with 0.18 technology actually makes it more difficult to shrink. Since they have no equipment capable of 0.09 (90nm) yet, they must rearrange everything to remove the optimizations that rely on smaller-than-everything-else parts. Everything must be made to work on the same 0.13 process parts now. This can be a significant problem, requiring a large-scale core rearrangement.

-Raystonn


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

bront

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2001
2,122
0
19,780
Sorry about the title, I just couldn't resist.

The new T-bread should be a great overclocker, and with board chipsets that handle DDR333, you can drop it down to DDR266 and then OC it with less stress on the chipset. Also, if you can unlock it like you can the XP and T-bird, you'll be able to change the multiplier and get even more out of the chip.

Trollin' trollin' trollin', keep them doggies postin', my fingers are swollen, Rawhide!
 
eden

eden

Champion
Oct 3, 2001
26,549
0
50,780
There was no official proof so far Ray, how can we beleive all this news?
And besides maybe they do have 0.09m ready in 0.13m, if they want the most efficiency off a die shrink.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
 
B

bikeman

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2002
233
0
18,680
Combining 90 nanometer and 130 nanometer lithography on the same wafer? I think that would take quite some advanced material. I don't believe that, but, please, try to convince me!

Greetz,
Bikeman

<i>Then again, that's just my opinion</i>
 
eden

eden

Champion
Oct 3, 2001
26,549
0
50,780
But that is what AMD has done with 0.18m, apparently from Raystonn's claims and the Inquirer.
They used 0.13m Gate lenghs in their 0.18m. Funny though, why don't they just change the rest of the 0.18m parts to 0.13m, keep the 0.13m GLs, how obvious can it be? Otherwise change to 0.09m GLs with 0.13m process, that way you get even more headroom, and a more efficient die shrink.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
 
J

juin

Distinguished
May 19, 2001
3,323
0
20,780
May be the rumors about AMD's .13u process technology in trouble was probably true.

Everyone have trouble with 0.13
Nvidia was not ready for Geforce 4.
Intel have major trouble with NW
TSMC still not in full 0.13
AMD have delay like all the others.
Everyone have delay on 0.13.

Next stop partial SOI (amd) and 0.09 complete SOI (intel)

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
 
K

Kemche

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2001
284
0
18,780
juin, Intel don't have major trouble with NW. They have delivered NW and it's great according to everyone.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
 
Kelledin

Kelledin

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2001
2,183
0
19,780
But that is what AMD has done with 0.18m, apparently from Raystonn's claims and the Inquirer.
Click to expand...
Correction, from Raystonn's claims and Intel's claims. The Inquirer merely reported, "Well, Intel said this and that..." So it's effectively all from Intel, which isn't the most honest or unbiased source of AMD info lately.

texas_techie might have some insight into whether the rumor is true.

Funny though, why don't they just change the rest of the 0.18m parts to 0.13m, keep the 0.13m GLs, how obvious can it be?
Click to expand...
Well, then you lose the extra production per wafer that comes from a die shrink. I also doubt it would do much to improve thermal characteristics.

Next stop partial SOI (amd) and 0.09 complete SOI (intel)
Click to expand...
Intel publicly stated many months ago that they weren't even going to bother with SOI. They apparently don't see much benefit in it.

juin, Intel don't have major trouble with NW. They have delivered NW and it's great according to everyone.
Click to expand...
Intel <i>did</i> have trouble with the Northwood. Remember, it was supposed to be delivered in 2001, but it kept getting pushed back and back and back. Same thing with AMD.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
 
dhlucke

dhlucke

Polypheme
Feb 2, 2001
31,570
0
65,780
The fact that they were mixing 0.13 technology with 0.18 technology actually makes it more difficult to shrink.
Click to expand...

This is not a fact.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
 
L

leonov

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
66
0
18,630
Thank goodness this place has changed. When I first came just after it was created here people seemed not to really know too much and accepted everything Raytonn said. He is so fond of pulling "facts" from his butt to make it appear that AMD have made a mistake.

L
 
J

juin

Distinguished
May 19, 2001
3,323
0
20,780
Intel publicly stated many months ago that they weren't even going to bother with SOI. They apparently don't see much benefit in it.

Intel dont see benefit from non-complete SOI.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
 
eden

eden

Champion
Oct 3, 2001
26,549
0
50,780
Wow heheh, you must've posted 25 or 30 posts max and have gone for a long time before coming back here, because you're still in Newbie status!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 04/02/02 04:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
R

Raystonn

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2001
2,273
0
19,780
This is not a fact.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. We took apart one of their processors. If we were lying about this AMD would be suing us for libel.

-Raystonn


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

Raystonn

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2001
2,273
0
19,780
Thank goodness this place has changed. When I first came just after it was created here people seemed not to really know too much and accepted everything Raytonn said. He is so fond of pulling "facts" from his butt to make it appear that AMD have made a mistake.
Click to expand...
What I am saying in regards to this is completely accurate. If you have any doubt, either ask an Intel representative or grab an Athlon XP and put it under a very expensive microscope.

-Raystonn



= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom