Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hammer Clock

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 18, 2002 4:48:33 PM

What's the clock speed on a Hammer +3400? I may have missed an article or two around the net that states the debute of hammer will be a +3400 as fact, and am wondering what the clock will be. I understand its a new core from the ground up, but I find it hard to believe AMD will release a 3ghz chip when never releasing anything in 2ghz or up first. Their putting everything into a high performance chip? What will they use to compete w/ 2ghz-3ghz? Will Hammer +3400 be the low end of that core? t-bred comes in between now and then, but how high can THAT chip go? Big gap there....Im thinkin theyll release lower clocked Hammers and not debute it at +3400 like Ive been reading.

I sold my sig for $50.

More about : hammer clock

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2002 7:11:24 PM

Tbred and later Barton will work from the 2000+ to 3000+ ~ range.

--IcyOne
May 18, 2002 7:39:53 PM

Hammer will be 2GHz or more in actual clock - It's PR will start out at an estimated 3400+ model number.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.
Related resources
May 18, 2002 7:51:11 PM

Is there some sort of article or press release to support that? 2ghz or more? That's a little vague....
Im hearing conflicting opinions about the T-bred. Can it get as high as 3000+?

I sold my sig for $50.
May 18, 2002 9:01:04 PM

According to texas techie, it should start around 2.1GHZ or higher. AMD has not reached the clock speed yet, but they are getting there.
texas is this forum's best AMD contact, so I would trust him on the Hammer improvements and news.
I doubt AMD will go for PR3000 Tbreds, otherwise the Hammer intro will sound not so much of a performance boost.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 18, 2002 9:10:30 PM

That would leave a HUGE space where theres no AMD competition.

I sold my sig for $50.
May 18, 2002 11:59:46 PM

Hammer will debut with a high PR rating of around 3400. However, they will likely offer 2800, 3000, 3200 as well as 3400 speeds to start. This will fill the spectrum at the high end, with TBred clocking up to around PR 2400 or 2600 and Barton going up from there to PR2800, 3000, etc as Hammer moves up to 4000 and 4400 later in 2003.

Why would someone buy a Hammer at 2800 over a TBred/Barton at 2800? Performance and upgradability, probably.

BTW this is all just my own hypothesizing, based on known AMD roadmaps and basic common sense (IMO)

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 19, 2002 3:29:22 AM

If the PR is conservative, then even at PR2800, SSE 2 optimizations would push it even further than the designed PR in optimized apps.
So indeed PR2800, as much as it sounds low, can be much more per PR to a Tbred 2800. This will also increase with Barton (more per PR), so again, IF PR is conservative.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 19, 2002 5:10:22 AM

So much great info... Am I allowed to drowl now? or is there still the posiblity that this thing might not be as good as everyone says it is?

AMD XP 1900+
A7V-333
Geforce 3 TI 200
PC2100 512MB
May 19, 2002 12:44:40 PM

Well a lot of these estimates on performance increase are theoretical. Although I'm sure Hammer will increase performance, I'm not going to start drooling over this or Prescott until I see some benchmarks/tests. I'm actually really looking forward to Prescott more. Supposedly they'll debut at at least 4GHz. Pair that with dual channel DDR or DDRII and you got a freaking nice system... If Prescott comes out 2Q03, then I'm going to guess that AMD's 0.09um Hammer won't be out for a while after that. Since it seems like AMD's manufacturing process has always been ~2Q behind Intel's upgrades.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 19, 2002 1:10:43 PM

Well, I suspect the first CPUs to get the .09 change will be the mobile processors. AMD has mobile K8's on it's roadmap in 2H03, so that stands to reason. In addition, I suspect AMD will want to bring the mobile K8's out as soon as possible, so we may see mobile K8's early 3Q03, with desktops not appearing until the end of the year. Both are still on the roadmap for 2H03, which, I believe is the same timeframe Intel has for Prescott still.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 19, 2002 4:25:12 PM

Quote:
Hammer won't be out for a while after that. Since it seems like AMD's manufacturing process has always been ~2Q behind Intel's upgrades.


Only to someone who dosent know what hes talking about, amd had copper YEARS before intel, and amd had an issue with a specific chip shrink NOT the .13 process in its entirety(as evidenced by the completed .13 hammer samples so early on and the quick release date scheduled for the hammer).


Intel has been behind amd in process shifting in the past(I believe amd beat them to .18 or it was extrememly close) and intels .13 conversion took longer than amds, remember intel needs to convert 4 times as much capacity to new process's to keep up with amd simply due to their 4x marketshare.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 19, 2002 6:39:06 PM

hey guys,
well... i always post what I know (even if in vague terms) but i gotta say the Hammer roadmap is changing a LOT. So whatever i give, expect it change.
For now, the +3400 rating is gone. Initial PR will be lower. But like i said, its way too early to tell where Hammer will debut at. THe closer we get to release, obviously the more firm the numbers will be. Honestly, im not impressed. I keep telling myself its a semi-new core, so be patient. We shall see...

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
May 19, 2002 8:52:45 PM

Quote:
intels .13 conversion took longer than amds, remember intel needs to convert 4 times as much capacity to new process's to keep up with amd simply due to their 4x marketshare.

And they still did it before AMD. Surprising isn't it? And also market share has nothing to do with conversion times, only the amount of fabs and equipment needed to be replaced/upgraded. Since AMD doesn't have many, and they have UMC as a partner, their upgrade cycles shouldn't take as long. But all I'm saying is that AMD is barely making the shift to 0.13um now and Intel has done it more than 1Q ago. If AMD's partner was TSMC, then I'd be willing to say that their 0.09um upgrade will be ahead of Intel's; since they aren't, I'm reluctant to believe that.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 20, 2002 12:21:52 AM

Quote:
And they still did it before AMD. Surprising isn't it?

Again you are confusing conversion of dresden to .13 and the conversion of the axp to .13 THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.



Quote:
And also market share has nothing to do with conversion times, only the amount of fabs and equipment needed to be replaced/upgraded.


LoL, marketshare has a HUGE amount to do with conversion times, intel has to be able to produce 4 times as many chips to go to market than amd, do you honestly think that does not have any effect on the amount of time it takes intel to convert production to .13?

The main reason intel released a .13 chip first is that their shrink went well, and the downturn in the market allowed them to be able to lower production in their fabs making the conversion easier, whereas amds dresden has been working its ass off to keep up with demand making a conversion slightly more difficult.

All indicators point to dresden having .13 capacity, but the tbred having an issue, I will state it again, having a specific core which is having issues does not mean your line is having issues, if the tbreds timing design was off(which I can buy) then they would not be yielding in the worlds best fab, the fab itself is neither behind schedule, nor is it very far behind intel.

Quote:
But all I'm saying is that AMD is barely making the shift to 0.13um now and Intel has done it more than 1Q ago.


AMD is making tbreds at .13 now, that dosent mean dresden wasnt shifted months ago, you act as if amd is way behind intel when in fact in many areas amd beat intel by quite a large margin(IE copper years ahead of intel).

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 1:43:11 AM

Ok AMD is ahead of Intel in some ways, but if they can't use that to their advantage, then why should it matter? Say Dresden could manufacture 0.13um chips at the beginning of this year, why should we care if t-bred still hasn't come out by now? And even if it is T-breds fault, how do we know AMD won't have further problems? All I'm saying even if Intel is a bit behind, but can get their products out to the public before AMD can, then that's a bonus for Intel, not for AMD just cause they "can" produce them.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 20, 2002 2:31:31 AM

I see a logic pattern of AMD fans ...
For platform stability issue: it is due to the chipset or motherboard; AMD processors have no issue.
For .13 conversion delay: it is due the design of core, the production line has no issue...

What's next?
May 20, 2002 4:02:05 AM

You made the point that amd was behind intel and subsequently intels .09 process chips woudl be released much sooner than amds, my statements were countering your incorrect supposistions.

While it dosent matter to amd NOW that their fab is .13 ready it does matter in the fact intel is NOT ahead of them signifigantly in process. Which is what I was saying.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 4:03:09 AM

Quote:
I see a logic pattern of AMD fans ...


Come back when you have something productive to add to the conversation.



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 4:22:31 AM

Hehe, just trying to make a point: either AXP core is not shrinkable for 0.13 (as Intel pointed before it already has 0.13 feature so cannot be screezed more), or AMD's 0.13 line is poorly engineered.
May 20, 2002 3:39:04 PM

Quote:
Hehe, just trying to make a point: either AXP core is not shrinkable for 0.13 (as Intel pointed before it already has 0.13 feature so cannot be screezed more), or AMD's 0.13 line is poorly engineered.


And both your points are WRONG.

The amd line is shrinkable to .13 and intel was JEALOUS over dresdens .13 CLASS gate lengths, I have discussed this issue before.

The tbred's first run appears to have had a design issue which has been cleared up, the new chips are in the pipe and are near release, the old ones will be sold as slow tbreds and as mobiles.

Amds .13 line works fine as shown by the hammer samples and their ahead of schedule release expectations for said .13 hammer, if they had a .13 shift issue the hammer would be delayed.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 4:42:56 PM

Hey Mat, Tex is suggesting that initial Hammer may not reach a PR of 3400 when it's released, but may be closer to PR3000. What is your opinion of that possibility?

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 7:21:05 PM

Good way to sum it up. I don't know why they can't just admit that AMD is falling behind.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 20, 2002 8:01:36 PM

I believe its entirely possible, but I make 2 bets.


1) hammer will release faster than any p4 out on its release date.
2) the hammer will be priced less than the equavalently performing p4 on all pricepoints, and the fastest will be less than the fastest p4.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 8:04:41 PM

Quote:
I don't know why they can't just admit that AMD is falling behind.


Whos they?

Amd is behind in what way?

Overall fastest processor money is no object, sure amd is behind.
Overclocking best processor, sure amd is behind.

Best processor for the dollar at stock, amd wins easily.
Fastest processor per amount of silicon, amd wins that one too.(axp is smaller)

Amd is not and does not have to keep up with the p4 with the axp or tbred, the hammer is the competition for the p4, the athlon was always the p3's competition.

The only people who are being weird are those people who try and make it seem like its signifigant intel is ahead of amd right this second, "they" are the fanboys, not people who either disagree or dont care.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 8:07:13 PM

Texas had said AMD is modifying their PR. Maybe, just maybe, the PR now reflects a Palomino, say... It would explain why, and it would be powerful as hell!

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 20, 2002 8:53:53 PM

You forgot couple of more...

.13u Product out the door - Intel Wins
Most overclock ability - Intel wins ( p4 1.6a )
Best protection for your investment - Intel Wins (IHS, etc).
Best Stable Platform - Intel Wins
- Please notice I said Platform not CPU.

So Only thing AMD has advantage over Intel at this movement is Price/Preformance and Die size. I do admit that Intel charges more for their processor then AMD but the advantage for die size can be argued and discarded since it cose Intel & AMD the same amount of money to make processors.

and "they" that you are saying are the fanboys are on both sides on AMD and Intel.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 20, 2002 9:01:53 PM

Quote:
Fastest processor per amount of silicon, amd wins that one too.(axp is smaller)


That's reaching pretty deep, Mat. We going to have fastest CPU per pin count, or coolest sticker for the price?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 9:15:54 PM

Exactly. I donot see why the reselling price is anything to do with the technology advance of either company. The price of chip is not anywhere even close to its production cost, and is totally determined by marketing policy. The comparison of performance/price ratio between Intel and AMD is just totally irrelavant to most discussion here, and now it seems the only card someone can play.
May 20, 2002 9:26:32 PM

" Amds .13 line works fine as shown by the hammer samples and their ahead of schedule release expectations for said .13 hammer, if they had a .13 shift issue the hammer would be delayed."

This arguement is just weak. Intel's 0.09 line is far from production, but they managed to get samples of prescott SRAM in March.
I guess most people who are arguing with you on this topic actually donot want to prove or donot care about which company is ahead. We are picking on you just because you keep claiming how great AMD is without any proof (somewhat like Sanders), and we get annoyed.
May 20, 2002 9:34:50 PM

Limited samples is far away from a commerical product however.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 20, 2002 9:34:52 PM

Limited samples is far away from a commerical product however.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 20, 2002 9:51:10 PM

Quote:
You forgot couple of more...

.13u Product out the door - Intel Wins
Most overclock ability - Intel wins ( p4 1.6a )
Best protection for your investment - Intel Wins (IHS, etc).
Best Stable Platform - Intel Wins
- Please notice I said Platform not CPU.



I believe I mentioned most overclock, also your full opf fud and bs if you claim most stable platform.

Amd platform is just as stable and compatable as the intel platform when set up properly, period.


Quote:
AMD but the advantage for die size can be argued and discarded since it cose Intel & AMD the same amount of money to make processors.

and "they" that you are saying are the fanboys are on both sides on AMD and Intel.


We had that very debate, no one knows if it costs intel the same as amd per processor.

And I am saying that my comments were COUNTERS to people saying intel has the clear powerful super lead over amd made in this thread.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 9:53:35 PM

Quote:
That's reaching pretty deep, Mat. We going to have fastest CPU per pin count, or coolest sticker for the price?


Missed the sarcasm burger shame, my point was NO ONE can say amd or intel is haead because ahead is totally subjective on what you value.

Someone can say intel is ahead of amd cause they have a released to market .13 processor first, others can claim amd is ahead because they had copper ics a year ahead of intel.(my claim of that was a counter to the claim amd was obviously behind).

Im trying to make the point that neither company can be claimed to be ahead or behind, and that people should not do that, and when people did do that(chuck, kemche and castle iirc) in this thread I made the counter points to show that its all about your point of view.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 9:55:31 PM

Quote:
This arguement is just weak. Intel's 0.09 line is far from production, but they managed to get samples of prescott SRAM in March.


An entire working chip at .13 versus a SINGLE TRANSISTOR AT .09 is a very different thing, your counter was just weak.

As for people arguing with me, I am countering yours and other's statements amd is clearly behind, when in fact they are not.

Go back and reread what you obviously missed, and you wont be so annoyed, dont make baseless claims about intel being so far ahead and I wont have to counter them with accurate points.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 9:57:22 PM

Intels .09 transistor was not even a limited sample, it was an sram experement, it was no where near logic class and it was made in a research fab(which is a huge farcry from a production fab like dresden).


People have a hard time realizing that the simple fact dresden a PRODUCTION FAB, can produce working .13 chips says a whole lot about how much of amds conversion is actually done, and furthermore the fact that the chips dresden is making at .13 are working shows their .13 process is in fact stable and producing.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 20, 2002 11:01:46 PM

You're not very good at this "sarcasm" thing, maybe you should leave it to the masters :tongue:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2002 11:37:21 PM

Quote:

guess most people who are arguing with you on this topic actually donot want to prove or donot care about which company is ahead. We are picking on you just because you keep claiming how great AMD is without any proof (somewhat like Sanders), and we get annoyed.


I totally agree with you. I am only arguing with this guys is because there is no way in the hell he will say AMD is loosing. On the process technology he said AMD beat Intel on copper, but he totally missed it that AMD missed the boat on .13u which is important right now and copper is old news.

I do know that I don't have all the information but he doesn't either. According to him what AMD says that's the truth. Get a grip, everyone agreed when P4 first released and sander said it's a dud, but now we know the potential of P4. Somtimes I wonder if AMD is paying him to back them up.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kemche on 05/20/02 07:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 20, 2002 11:43:34 PM

Quote:
Someone can say intel is ahead of amd cause they have a released to market .13 processor first, others can claim amd is ahead because they had copper ics a year ahead of intel.(my claim of that was a counter to the claim amd was obviously behind).


I think you don't know what ahead and behind means. For example to you AMD "was" ahead in copper and to me Intel "is" ahead in .13u. But I think you seem to miss the point that we are discussing who is "ahead" right now, not two or three years ago.

and sorry to break it to you man Intel is ahead right now in preformance and process technology.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 21, 2002 12:06:31 AM

I agree with you 100%,

".13u Product out the door - Intel Wins
Most overclock ability - Intel wins ( p4 1.6a )
Best protection for your investment - Intel Wins (IHS, etc).
Best Stable Platform - Intel Wins
- Please notice I said Platform not CPU."

Its funny to watch Matisaro rant about how great dresden fab is but die size, pin count, cores per wafer, wafer size, production costs, copper interconnects, and IPC does not mean [-peep-] if they cannot get product out the door.

P4 just switched to second gear smoothly, as AMD grinds the gears still looking for first.

30 days from now we will be having the same conversation... where is the Tbred? Hammer is gonna... ROFL at that superior dresden fab.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
May 21, 2002 2:02:13 AM

Quote:
I think you don't know what ahead and behind means. For example to you AMD "was" ahead in copper and to me Intel "is" ahead in .13u. But I think you seem to miss the point that we are discussing who is "ahead" right now, not two or three years ago.


When did the topic change to "who is *ahead* right now" in the way you suggest?

I thought the whole topic of this part of the thread was an argument based on the following comment

Quote:
Since it seems like AMD's manufacturing process has always been ~2Q behind Intel's upgrades.


by Chuck.

In point of fact, Mat fully refuted this claim by Chuck with his reference of Copper IC by AMD a YEAR ahead of INTEL, disproving Chuck's claim that AMD has always been 2Q behind Intel.

If I recall, both Intel and AMD were at .18 micron when AMD jumped ahead of Intel by a year with the copper. Intel then caught up and jumped ahead of AMD by around 9 months with .13 micron. Now AMD has just about caught up on the .13 micron aspect and both companies expect to ship their .09 micron process based CPUs within months of each other.

So I ask again....when did it change to Who is behind NOW or who is ahead NOW?

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 21, 2002 2:25:32 AM

Quote:
totally agree with you. I am only arguing with this guys is because there is no way in the hell he will say AMD is loosing. On the process technology he said AMD beat Intel on copper, but he totally missed it that AMD missed the boat on .13u which is important right now and copper is old news.

What I am arguing young padawan to the forum is that you have NO IDEA how far converted to .13 dresden is, and the fact that the tbred came out later than the northwood does NOT neccisarily mean that amd is behind in converting its fabs and thusly is behind intel.

Also my comments were in reference to a claim about amd "always" having been behind intel by several quarters.
:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 21, 2002 2:27:15 AM

Quote:
do know that I don't have all the information but he doesn't either. According to him what AMD says that's the truth. Get a grip, everyone agreed when P4 first released and sander said it's a dud, but now we know the potential of P4. Somtimes I wonder if AMD is paying him to back them up.

Look, you can engage in debate all you want, but infering I am paid by amd or am in some way a troll does nothing for your stance, if you could read you would see that my statements about amd and copper etc came in RESPONCE to others claims intel was clearly in the lead(and always have been by ~2quarters), my points serve only to remind the rabid intel fans that we DONT KNOW who is ahead and that the tbred not being out proves NOTHING.



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 21, 2002 2:29:51 AM

Quote:
by Chuck.

In point of fact, Mat fully refuted this claim by Chuck with his reference of Copper IC by AMD a YEAR ahead of INTEL, disproving Chuck's claim that AMD has always been 2Q behind Intel.


Zenegos perfectly summed up, my respect and thanks, friend.

To all the would be people jumping on the boat of attacking my comments zenegos has illuminated my intent perfectly. Read the intent of the thread before picking bones with comments made.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 21, 2002 3:12:56 AM

I own an AXP1600, and i admit AMD is falling behind. I'm an AMD fan at the moment and even i'll admit Matisaro is a little TOO biased when he argues against people. He shouldn't need to bring the argument into a war of semantics by countering a persons "incorrect" points (in this post). He should be trying to counter the theme of that person's message instead which was that AMD is beginning to fall behind the 8-ball.
May 21, 2002 3:21:16 AM

Quote:
He should be trying to counter the theme of that person's message instead which was that AMD is beginning to fall behind the 8-ball.


Actually, Xaz that's the whole point here. One person started a change in the thread about Hammer, to about AMD being behind. HOWEVER, this person posited that AMD has ALWAYS been about 2 quarters behind Intel.

That is patently false.

Yes, AMD has lost the performance crown on the desktop, but the crown has changed hands between the two companies numerous times over the past several years. So, who is ahead NOW is irrelevant. The relevancy comes down to the original posit that AMD has always been behind Intel. However, Mat clearly proved that the supposition was incorrect

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 21, 2002 3:23:10 AM

I dunno why they are trying to put you in a fanboy-like boat.
I'll side with you and Zengeos 100% here, because from what I see, those two simply cannot see the real you.

Dudes, if you see Mat as biased, you probably have yet to see some of his nice comments at Intel. In fact when he is so called "defending" AMD, he is defending the statements and refuting those you make, which are most likely false, so he answers them. Go make a claim about Intel, I bet if he sees it wrong, maybe he'll refute that too, so you'd know he isn't biased.
I admit Mat has a good view on AMD, I can understand him too, for seeing the good things this little daring company has brought, and I too value AMD a lot too. But saying he is biased, calling him fanboy is pure FUD from you people.

Thank you all...

--
I can't beleive Dungeon Siege has a pitchfork weapon called "Hoe"! :lol: 
May 21, 2002 3:24:20 AM

I just read a crapload of posts and I think I saw you, mat, post that AMD had a problem with the first run of T-breds. I also believe you said they released those T-breds as mobile cause they dont clock high......You saying AMD released Bum .13 chips that dont clock as high as their predecessor? And since the AMD Dresden Fab has been making T-bred mobiles for a couple months, does that mean AMD made bum chips for a few months before they realized they were crap? I dont buy your theory. AMD is just draggin ass on this one. I'd say because +2300, maybe 2400 is all theyre gonna get outta their T-bred. And spreading out the releases will let them charge a premium for a longer period of time. They wouldnt make more than 20 chips that didnt clock high as you say....

I sold my sig for $50.
May 21, 2002 3:30:20 AM

Ok, his closing sentence to support what he was saying was wrong (according to Matisaro). But was what he was saying wrong? Are AMD are going to be behind intel with their .09 hammer release?
May 21, 2002 3:33:37 AM

Actually LED, AMD discussed the issue either in a conference call or in a meeting of some sort, I forget which, off top of my head. But, the gist of the comment was as follows.

The ,13 micron conversion is proceeding ahead of schedule. All of Dresden should be converted by end of Q3. However, there is an unexpected issue with the Thoroughbred shrink needing to be addressed and that should improve TBred performance more in line with expectations (of AMD).

In another comment by AMD back in Feb or March, they said that they were getting nearly as many candidates per wafer as on their mature .18 micron process. (this is very good considering it's a new process to AMD and bodes well for the process once it matures some (by now)

Mark-

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