Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New about Hammer

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 17, 2002 5:15:17 PM

Despite being WAY behind in megahertz, AMD still expects to compete with Prescott when its released. By how much? Best I can tell they expect to be anywhere from 5% better to 10% behind (in performance).
As for the 533mhz NW, they expect to beat it by anywhere from 5-25% (depending on cache, and chip speed).
They have also found an interesting new technology. If they use it, it will boost performance by a pretty big margin. Ive never heard of this stuff before so I cant tell you a thing about it. I just know the ends, not the means.
Conclusion: We are still on track for November. PR models are still being changed quicker than underwear. Hammer will compete with Intel for a long time. As intel ramps up Hammer/Intel will be neck and neck. Which is great in my book. This makes for competitive pricing.
I think both companies will have some tricks up their sleeve next year. I cant wait :) 




Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

More about : hammer

May 17, 2002 5:34:19 PM

Quote:
I cant wait :) 

:(  I can.

The better/faster processors get, the worse my Celeron 500 looks. :(  At this rate I'll be lucky to even be capable of playing the next version of Pong! (I hear that it's supposed to have a really neat-looking bump-mapping on the paddles that makes them look all shiny and some cool ray-tracing for a comet-like trail on the ball that'll be 'out of this world'. He he he.)

Seriously though, short of starting a 3rd job, I think my next PC upgrade will be sometime in early 2003. So'd be happier if PDA's aren't out-performing my home system and desktop PCs aren't able to make my home system look like a C=64 before I can afford an upgrade.

<pre><font color=orange><b>du hast den Sweater verkehrt an</b></font color=orange>
Oh my!</pre><p>
May 17, 2002 8:04:17 PM

Quote:
At this rate I'll be lucky to even be capable of playing the next version of Pong! (I hear that it's supposed to have a really neat-looking bump-mapping on the paddles that makes them look all shiny and some cool ray-tracing for a comet-like trail on the ball that'll be 'out of this world'. He he he.)

Oooh, isn't that suposed to be the first DX9 game on the market? Finaly, a game to show the true power of the PC...


Seriously, early 2003 sounds like a good time to be buying. Hammer will have been out for a while, so prices should be very reasonable. Mem prices should have gone down a bit on high performance memory. New offerings from ATI, Nvidia, Matrox, and 3DLabs should have pushed Vid-card prices down.

Hmm, maybe I should save up for a comp around that time too...

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
Related resources
May 17, 2002 11:09:52 PM

Celeron 500.... You're a power user! Try C433 :-(


<font color=blue> The Opteration was a success... I'm now a full-wit</font color=blue> :eek: 
a c 159 à CPUs
May 17, 2002 11:10:13 PM

I love competition and great prices too, but Intel may be having second thoughts about big price cuts on May 25-26th. I read a recent article in my local paper, and the analyst concluded that the days of significant price drops for the P4 may be over for awhile. He said that current price cuts for May are just routine, and the biggest cuts have been postponed until the 4th quarter, probably due to increased demand. Intel, unlike AMD, is in business to make money. AMD has had so many price cuts that some people associate them with being cheap. I know better, but that didn't stop me from switching to the p4 when it's performance improved.
May 18, 2002 1:21:15 AM

I'm practically in the same boat with a system with a K6-2 CPU @ 450 MHz and some older Pentium 1 systems networked on my LAN. :-) From my experience, they usually run most things well, with the exception of newer games of course, even with a juiced up graphichs card..

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
May 18, 2002 2:59:22 AM

It's going to be tough going for Intel I predict for the time between Q402-Q203. This kind of thing always happens. One company releases a product and the other company will have nothing to compete. For example, Q402 Hammer should be around with a PR rating of 3400, which implies a P4 3.4GHz performance. By then the best Intel can hope for is a 3GHz P4 chip. I think Intel will really have to speed up Prescott and release it Q103. Hammer will come at a time when Intel is not really prepared for it, between product cycles. By the time Intel comes around and launches Prescott, they'll have lost some market share, but the sooner they release the less they'll lose, so I think Intel will be pushing their Prescotts out ahead of schedule. Remember when Intel said that 3GHz P4 wouldn't be out till at least Q103? Now they're saying Q402... looks like they're kinda worried.

I'm sure AMD is in this business to make money also, but with the pressure that Intel can exert, it is tough for AMD to have higher prices. A big reason people buy AMD chips is because they are cheaper. If they raised prices, people would start flocking to Intel. So AMD will have to be happy with their low margins right now, until something happens that reshapes the market.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 18, 2002 1:37:08 PM

"Intel, unlike AMD, is in business to make money."

I had no idea AMD was a not for profit organization. The Athlons and P4's are priced accordingly. You think AMD is doing YOU a service by providing chips at a lower cost than Intel? Nope! They sell em at that price to sell more. Intel charges more because people will pay it. Theres a greater demand for Pentium Processors. Also, I believe the newer chips are priced so high to keep the lower clocked chips selling. AMD, to most, is a lower end processor. All of us know better, but thats just what most people think. Celerons even take sales away from AXPS!! Because people see Intel and figure it must be better than AMD........But in regards to the above quote, both companies want to make money.....LOTS. If AXPS were in 50 percent of machines, you would see VERY competitive pricing from both camps.

I sold my sig for $50.
May 18, 2002 2:02:53 PM

Quote:
If AXPS were in 50 percent of machines, you would see VERY competitive pricing from both camps.

Unfortunately they are not, barely 20% of machines. And also AMD is barely making any money overall. Their procs may be, but way less than Intel and the cost to keep those fabs running and the R&D and the pay for employees is really strangling their pocket books. Intel just has better advertising and I believe they started making chips way before AMD did. They just had a strong market position already before AMD came along.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 18, 2002 2:08:28 PM

Very well said.
Finally some good news about Hammer!
Texas had hinted before that the Hammer's performance would marginally be better than top of the line P4s, thank god it ain't the case anymore. And if that new tech is used, imagine the boost! I hope, that it will outperform the highest P4s by 20-25%, it'll truly be a worthy buy by then.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 18, 2002 7:55:25 PM

how come AMD knows the'll be 5-10% behind Prescott which is mostly an un-knowned core on 90nm +1 year wawy which will battle off Hammer on a 90nm SOI process which AMD havn't sampled yet.
but give a much wider range of 5-25% for how how much the'll be ahead of northwood - which is a known core with ~known sacling (same goes for claw on 130nm SOI process).

doesn't it seem strange to you?
can you comment on that please?
thnx :-)

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
May 19, 2002 2:36:50 AM

Sounds like a conspiracy to me...

If an orange was driving a racecar would it peel out? www.jxfiles.com
May 19, 2002 6:43:47 AM

Sorry guys. Just wondering what the specs of Prescott will be. I'm a little behind on the tech that comes after 2002. Also, what's this new technology that AMD is boasting that'll deliver such great performance?
May 19, 2002 12:55:56 PM

Well <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=15766&t=a..." target="_new">this</A> is a pretty good overview about the Prescott. It doesn't give much, but Prescott is still almost a year away. Basically what I got from this article was that the 0.09um process is 1/2 the size of 0.13um process. This means that if they made the P4 exactly as it is on the 0.09um process, it'd be 1/2 the size. That really gives some hope that 1Mb L2 cache is on the way. Intel is already on its way to mass producing 0.09um chips, but AMD and UMC are barely coming out of their conversion to 0.13um. Looks like 0.09um Hammer will be a long ways off.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 19, 2002 1:17:24 PM

Actually, Chuck, in discussing the process conversions, AMD has nearly completed their conversion, in about 9 months.

Intel started theirs early LAST year and is just recently finished with their .13 conversion.

So, I suspect AMD will catch up rapidly. They have DuPont building a new facility in Dresden to research lithography and produce better lithography. Now, who do you think that will benefit being right near AMD's primary CPU FAB?

In addition, just because Intel has displayed some .09 micron circuitry doesn't necessarily put them overly far ahead of AMD. My guess is they are 3 months ahead, perhaps, but once AMD gets their conversion going they will complete at least 1 or 2 quarters ahead of Intel.

Keep in mind, also, that while Intel heavily advertised their copper interconnects months before AMD, AMD came out with copper interconnects on their Athlon months before Intel.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 19, 2002 1:47:49 PM

Forgive me if I am being simple here but how can 0.13um be double 0.09 ? Now I know its been a while since I was at school but isn't 0.09*2, 0.18 ???

Tim

I can call you Betty, and Betty when you call me... You can call me Al
May 19, 2002 2:44:14 PM

Read the article. I don't have a clue, but they explain.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 19, 2002 4:16:23 PM

Quote:
Intel is already on its way to mass producing 0.09um chips,


No they arent, and in the grand scale of things amd is at most 4 months behind intel in conversion(although I feel the tbred had an issue not amds .13 process, but I cant prove it so its supposistion).

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 19, 2002 4:17:27 PM

Quote:
Keep in mind, also, that while Intel heavily advertised their copper interconnects months before AMD, AMD came out with copper interconnects on their Athlon months before Intel.


Try year(s), intel did not have working copper ic's till the NORTHWOOD, amd had working copper ics in the TBIRD!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 19, 2002 6:21:45 PM

How can AMD know how Prescott will perform? I have a feeling both companies know a great deal about each others technology. The wide margins (5-25%) for the NW were for a range of processor speeds. THe lower end Hammers will have a better performance (compared to NW) but as NW ramps up, that gap narrows.
The small range for Prescott simply means that Prescott and Hammer will be very similar in performance. Unless, of course, someone pulls off something special.
The new technology, i wish I could say more, but i dont have a clue what it is. I just know its something noone has ever heard of and should (according to AMD) offer some performance. not a lot, but enough to make a difference.
BTW.. AMD is doing some interesting things with PR ratings. I hope, and pray, that AMD doesnt screw themselves with the new PR ratings they are assigning to Hammer. The closer we get to release, the firmer the numbers should be.


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
May 19, 2002 9:17:05 PM

Technically saying, IF PR will modify its stance, I see no further than Palomino or Barton relativity. If that is the case, in no doubt it'd be fine if it had a lower PR rating, because even a PR3000 Hammer, using Palomino PR, would kick any NW's butt until something like 400MHZ further. Why? Well current benchs show a 1.73GHZ AXP having a solid competition against a 2.2GHZ, which is 433MHZ above it. I really do hope the PR's relativity goes to the newest Athlons, it'd make Hammer friggin good.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 19, 2002 11:46:18 PM

Quote:

Forgive me if I am being simple here but how can 0.13um be double 0.09 ? Now I know its been a while since I was at school but isn't 0.09*2, 0.18 ???


We're talking total area the chip takes up. With the 30% process shrink from .13 to .09 it works out to this equation, roughly:

13x13 = 169

9x9 = 81

so, .09 takes up less than half the space that .13 takes if the shrink is just a shrink. What you forgot to do was multiply as a square.

.18 would equate to 324 or just about twice the size of .13

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 1:16:19 AM

THanks, couldn't have said it better myself.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 20, 2002 2:39:16 AM

You are absolutely wrong! Tualatin has Cu interconnection, and it has been in production since last summer. This means Intel is roughly a year ahead of AMD in terms of 0.13um mass production.
May 20, 2002 4:00:16 AM

Your right I meant to say intels .13 process not northwood specifically, that dosent change the fact that the MAIN POINT I was making was that amd beat intel to copper by at least a year, or do you plan to argue that the tbirds came out less than a year before the tuallys?

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 4:16:30 AM

I wouldnot say copper is some tech that advanced compared with 0.13. It is true that AMD adapted it earlier than Intel, but at what cost? Copper is extremely dangerous in this industry and great caution is needed. Once production line in Dresdon was shutdown for copper comtamination. For something like this I donot want to be the 1st to try. Same arguement for SOI.
If you want to compare which company is faster in new process convertion, please note: Intel finished copper and .13 together and started mass production in summer 2001 in multiple fabs; AMD did copper in 2000, and not yet completely finish its 0.13 in one fab.
May 20, 2002 11:36:27 AM

Oh brother.

Each company is ahead in some ways and behind in others.

Why is that?

Because each company has it's own priorities to meet it's particular production roadmaps.

INTC has decided that A, B and C need to be done before D.

AMD has decided that A, C and D need to be done and THEN move on to B.

Saying AMD is behind or saying Intel is behind.. or saying either is ahead is totally irrelevant.

Yes, Intel is a larger company (4-5x bigger) with commensurately more engineers, designers and personnel in general. This certainly gives Intel some advanatages. However, AMD, for a much smaller company has managed to maintain general development and production process parity with Intel; enough to remain competetive and maintain marketshare, at least.

Finally, while Intel has far more engineers to develop their processes and chip designs, AMD has managed to garner more patents by far than Intel.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 11:36:27 AM

Oh brother.

Each company is ahead in some ways and behind in others.

Why is that?

Because each company has it's own priorities to meet it's particular production roadmaps.

INTC has decided that A, B and C need to be done before D.

AMD has decided that A, C and D need to be done and THEN move on to B.

Saying AMD is behind or saying Intel is behind.. or saying either is ahead is totally irrelevant.

Yes, Intel is a larger company (4-5x bigger) with commensurately more engineers, designers and personnel in general. This certainly gives Intel some advanatages. However, AMD, for a much smaller company has managed to maintain general development and production process parity with Intel; enough to remain competetive and maintain marketshare, at least.

Finally, while Intel has far more engineers to develop their processes and chip designs, AMD has managed to garner more patents by far than Intel.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 1:27:29 PM

What I say is that i really doesn't matter who comes out with what first. As long as it benifits us in the long run I'm happy. Also it shouldn't matter who is more advanced right now. For example AMD may be ahead of Intel, but it seems like Intel still has the consumer base, which AMD does not.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 20, 2002 3:32:55 PM

Quote:
wouldnot say copper is some tech that advanced compared with 0.13. It is true that AMD adapted it earlier than Intel, but at what cost? Copper is extremely dangerous in this industry and great caution is needed. Once production line in Dresdon was shutdown for copper comtamination. For something like this I donot want to be the 1st to try. Same arguement for SOI.
If you want to compare which company is faster in new process convertion, please note: Intel finished copper and .13 together and started mass production in summer 2001 in multiple fabs; AMD did copper in 2000, and not yet completely finish its 0.13 in one fab.


Copper is more of a tech advancement than .13 given the reasons you mentioned aboved(also dresden has never shut down due to copper contamination to my knowledge, please give me links to where you read this).


Furthermore, amds transistion to .13 seems to be on track and very closely behind intels as evidenced by the many hammer samples already on the market, its clear that amd can make .13 chips, and there has been information given to us by texas which explains why the tbred is late, the first run of the core had issues which have been cleared up, amds .13 process itself is sound IMO.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 3:35:35 PM

Quote:
<i>Chuck232 says:</i>
Remember when Intel said that 3GHz P4 wouldn't be out till at least Q103? Now they're saying Q402... looks like they're kinda worried.


That's strange, because I remember hearing from more than one source around January that 3GHz would be here by Christmas. Interesting how selective memory works :tongue:

Quote:
<i>Chuck232 says:</i>
That really gives some hope that 1Mb L2 cache is on the way.


Or perhaps an L3 cache? They'd definitely have the room, though they might opt for more dies per wafer instead.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 4:38:10 PM

Quote:
That's strange, because I remember hearing from more than one source around January that 3GHz would be here by Christmas. Interesting how selective memory works

Well I don't know how reliable inquirer.net is but <A HREF="http://www.the-inquirer.com/10040205.htm" target="_new">here</A> you go. Yeah it is pretty interesting how selective memory works.... :tongue:

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 20, 2002 6:23:10 PM

That's ok, US News had 3GHz around Christmas, I'd call them a bit more reliable than the Inquirer (but less of a tech publication, obviously).

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 6:44:44 PM

Actualy, AMD's transition to .13 is done. The Mobile Athlon XPs now feature the T-bread core, and have since early this month.

We're simply waiting for the desktops to be released.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
May 20, 2002 6:55:06 PM

Quote:
Or perhaps an L3 cache? They'd definitely have the room, though they might opt for more dies per wafer instead.

With the memory controler on the CPU Die, I would think the benifits of an L3 cache, or even a larger L2 cache would be lessened. L3 more than L2.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
May 20, 2002 7:03:03 PM

Quote:

With the memory controler on the CPU Die, I would think the benifits of an L3 cache, or even a larger L2 cache would be lessened. L3 more than L2.


So are you trying to say if Hammer would to include less L2 cache it wouldn't hurt the Preformance since it has an integrated memory controller. I think hammer is going to have 512kb of L2, can you tell me if it would to have say 256kb of cache how much would it effect if any?

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 20, 2002 7:13:43 PM

Quote:
Furthermore, amds transistion to .13 seems to be on track and very closely behind intels as evidenced by the many hammer samples already on the market, its clear that amd can make .13 chips, and there has been information given to us by texas which explains why the tbred is late, the first run of the core had issues which have been cleared up, amds .13 process itself is sound IMO.


Hey, if you want to talk about samples then let's please count the samples of P3 Tually were also available long before they released the processor. So are you saying that their .13u is done but they just aren't releasing since they don't have any product that they want to deploy it in? I don't think that's the case.

Oh and the most likely reason Intel probably didn't use copper is because to save cost since copper is littele expensive then Aluminium.

About T-bred core having problems and not the .13u having problem is just totally wrong. Just think about it T-bred is just a die shrink meaning nothing new from Palomino. Only thing new is the process technology, so the only thing that can go wrong making the processor is the process technology which is .13u.

If you still don't believe that AMD isn't haveing problem with their .13u process technology then how do you explain the low yields and clock frequency of the T-bred released for Mobile. Also the T-bred that will be launched on June 10 will only be available in Limited Quentities, so can you please explain why would AMD release something in Limited Quentities if their .13u was done and was having an excellent yields like you think?

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 20, 2002 7:25:12 PM

I was guessing/theorizing/asking (Hence the words "I would think"). Also, I said that the effects would be lessened, not that they would have no effect whatsoever.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
May 20, 2002 7:57:23 PM

Quote:
Hey, if you want to talk about samples then let's please count the samples of P3 Tually were also available long before they released the processor. So are you saying that their .13u is done but they just aren't releasing since they don't have any product that they want to deploy it in? I don't think that's the case.

You mean the tually samples from intels small RESEARCH FABS, research fabs amd does not have, the .13 samples of hammer come from DRESDEN, amds ONLY production fab.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.


Quote:
Oh and the most likely reason Intel probably didn't use copper is because to save cost since copper is littele expensive then Aluminium.

Pulled that one out of nowhere. Amd apparently thinks copper is good, and copper adds quite a bit of scalability to a process. And its not much more expensive than aluminum, or do you think the fact a copper hsf costs more than an aluminum one means amd is paying tons more for copper than it would for alum....lol.

Quote:
About T-bred core having problems and not the .13u having problem is just totally wrong. Just think about it T-bred is just a die shrink meaning nothing new from Palomino. Only thing new is the process technology, so the only thing that can go wrong making the processor is the process technology which is .13u.

This shows you dont know about the industry, the tbred could have a timing issue caused by its design, a shrink requires an entire new layout for timing issues etc.(everything happens so fast on a microchip that the difference an electrical signal takes to travel between a .2mm line and a .3mm line can cause the whole processor not to work properly.) The fact amd has produced working .13 chips in its MAIN AND ONLY PRODUCTION FAB, is a signal that they are not too far behind intel, and since hammers schedule is so advanced leads me to believe that the .9 transistion would be the same.


Quote:
If you still don't believe that AMD isn't haveing problem with their .13u process technology then how do you explain the low yields and clock frequency of the T-bred released for Mobile. Also the T-bred that will be launched on June 10 will only be available in Limited Quentities, so can you please explain why would AMD release something in Limited Quentities if their .13u was done and was having an excellent yields like you think?

Your confusing tbred having yield problems with amds .13 process, for the last time they are different things!@!

I explain the low yielding of mobiles(which btw you have no evidence to back up) with the fact that the first run of tbired chips are to be sold as mobiles, and those chips had some timing issues which limit their clockability, the new tbreds coming out(the ones in june) are fixxed according to texas techie's sources.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 9:22:52 PM

Quote:
<i>bront says:</i>
With the memory controler on the CPU Die, I would think the benifits of an L3 cache, or even a larger L2 cache would be lessened. L3 more than L2.

I agree, but we were talking about Prescott, not Hammer.

Quote:
<i>Matisaro says:</i>
Pulled that one out of nowhere.


...and then you agreed with him.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 10:03:15 PM

Quote:
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matisaro says:
Pulled that one out of nowhere.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...and then you agreed with him.



Quote:
Pulled that one out of nowhere. Amd apparently thinks copper is good, and copper adds quite a bit of scalability to a process. And its not much more expensive than aluminum, or do you think the fact a copper hsf costs more than an aluminum one means amd is paying tons more for copper than it would for alum....lol.




Obviously the lol at the end was missed, copper is not more expensive than aluminum in any signifigant capacity, his theory was bullshit and I thought the lol at the end(where I mocked his idea based on the fact he probably went by the price of copper over alum as a basis, and laughed at his flawwed reasoning)

But apparently I have to be really specific lately in my intent heh, I will try from now on, instead of hinting the person is full of [-peep-] to straight out and tell them that their idea about cost being a reason for non adoption of copper is bullshit and they are a moron for even suggesting it.

If that makes you happy oh burgermeister.

;-)

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 10:19:25 PM

but i think all of you will agree that copper is a very toxic substace and need to be more carefully to handling around and dispoise of.
May 20, 2002 10:20:45 PM

thus making it a little bit more expensive, and copper is much softer than alu. so harder to cut (i guess)
May 20, 2002 10:57:09 PM

Quote:
And its not much more expensive than aluminum


So it's a "little more expensive", like he said.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 11:10:36 PM

Quote:
all of you will agree that copper is a very toxic substace

Far less toxic than lead, which is a principal component of solder.

How toxic is aluminum, btw? I honestly don't know.

Quote:
copper is much softer than alu. so harder to cut (i guess)

Hmmm...copper is softer...so it's harder to cut? You might want to rethink that a bit.

Aluminum burns more easily than copper (anyone who welds tubing for refrigeration will tell you this), and even light friction overheating can cause aluminum to melt and "smear" (any mechanics seen what aluminum rods do to a crankpin when run without oil? :wink: ). This makes cutting aluminum a rather more delicate task.

Also, aluminum's greater tendency to burn makes it rather more toxic to work with (fumes get produced primarily when something burns or evaporates, not when it melts).

<pre>We now <b>return</b>(<font color=blue>-1</font color=blue>) to an irregular program scheduler.</pre><p><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kelledin on 05/20/02 06:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 20, 2002 11:16:08 PM

I think he meant that since it's softer, a blade wouldn't be able to grip against it as easily. Kind of like cutting through slightly melted butter instead of firm butter. Harder to get a clean cut.

I don't know if that would hold true in a FAB though.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 11:53:58 PM

Sorry, I confisued everyone on this copper issue, All I ment to say was copper is probabaly little more expensive like pennies more expensive then "Aluminum". And since Intel sells more CPU each pennies saved would help big time on their bottom line.

For example AMD has 20% market share and they sell 8 Million CPU's per Quarter. Therefore Intel probably sell 40 Million. If they save just a Nickel on each they would save 2 Million per Quarter.

I am not saying that's the reason they didn't adopt copper, I was just saying copper is little expensive.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 21, 2002 2:10:09 AM

Fatburger comes to the rescue wahhhhhhhhh
taht was my guess anyway but copper's price ahd been all time low from all i no, and alu is not doing much better either.

I know what you did last summer when you install amd, and now its time for punishment!! -Intel
May 21, 2002 2:13:36 AM

Quote:
For example AMD has 20% market share and they sell 8 Million CPU's per Quarter. Therefore Intel probably sell 40 Million. If they save just a Nickel on each they would save 2 Million per Quarter.


Actually, Intel produces between 30 and 32 million CPU's per quarter by your calculations of AMD's 8 million being 20%

(32 million is 4x 8 million. 1 + 4 = 5, which, multiplied by 20 = 100)

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 21, 2002 2:20:16 AM

Quote:
So it's a "little more expensive", like he said



A: I havent conceded the fact it is even more expensive, I have no hard data.
B: he was infering it was soo more expensive intel refused to touch it by choice, and furthermore he infered that intel "let" amd get cu ic first.

Which was the reason I countered his post in the way I did.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
!