Added delay on AMD roadmap

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processor [...] 08,00.html

Official info

0.09 for 2004 Q1 so i reality Q3 at best.1 year late compare to intel that allready sample 0.09 at D1C.Next step EUV but for what i have read it maybe be little longer to see 65 nm node 2006 ?

Now what to do??

I ain't surprised. Honestly how the heck were they planning 0.13m CH to launch in Q3 mainstream if 0.09m was destined to come out by then?

Well let's hope they will try to keep 0.09m stable on first shot.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/images/2002-11/amd-roadmap.jpg" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/images/2002-11/amd-roadmap.jpg</A>

Here is a copy of the roadmap, before it was taken down at AMD. This is courtesy of x-bit labs. As you can see, the horses are gone, replaced by geographic locations. What their connections are to each other, I have no clue.

-SammyBoy

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

Too bad about .9 micron but I'm surprised Clawhammer is still in the same slot with Sledgehammer/Opteron. Plus, this is the first that I have heard of a Mobile Clawhammer.

Looks like the Thoroughbreds are officially called Athlon XP.

<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>

I find it hard to separate fact from rumor. At one time I thought the Thoroughbred would be the official and only XP core. At the same time the older Palomino core would be demoted to the "Duron", if not by name then by marketing (since supposed the Duron line what supposed to be terminated). The new Thoroughbred core would be used for Athlon XP 1600+ all the way up.

Later a similar shift would take place when Barton is introduced. That's what I thought, at least.

<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>

Mobile claw has been on AMD's roadmap since at least the beginning of this year. It was slated for 2H03 and, I think, it still is.

As for AMD introing .09 in early 2004 meaning it won't be on the market until late 04....that doesn't jibe with past record. It historically (this year at least) has taken about 10-12 weeks from first production to actual availability. So, if AMD says they will transition to .09 1h 04, the very longest it should take to hit the market is 3q04. That is around 6 months later than originally anticipated, perhaps 9 months, unless you take worst case scenario and assume (which is silly really) that AMD's earlier 2h03 roadmap for .09 meant AMD would begin shipping early in the cycle. So, we are back to a 6 month delay realistically, NOT a 1 year delay. However, there coul;d be further delays, primarily due to budget limitations, likely.

Mark-

Mark-

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

Don't be a lemming. So he's an Intel fanboy. Let's face it, right now, Intel have the highest performing processor on the market and they've got price/performance too. Don't you worry, juin will be laughing off the other side of his face if AMD goes broke and Intel suddenly start charging $1000US for their processors and those of us who support the uderdog will jump up and down and yell "We told you so!"

You keep speaking about these cores no one ever heard of! Seriously, Bandera? Barely anyone has any idea of those cores you talk about, so in pope's case, I don't think you't helping, heh.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden