POST A COMMENT

70 Comments

Back to Article

  • cryptonomicon - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    how exciting :D

    i always wanted AMD to get a new fab, what takes em so long :P
    Reply
  • rcc - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    that a company suing someone else for business practice and unfair competition can annouce that it got a half billion dollar of government subsidizing on a new Fab plant without anyone commenting on it. So I had to. : )

    Reply
  • eljefe2 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    If you live in the US, yes this would be an issue. However they live in Germany. they have a socialist and MUCH more advanced society for handling the big business to employee gap. The corporation, as originally designed by Alexander Hamilton, was an entity of the public that is meant to serve the public and if it does not, it cannot exist. They in germany really see things like this. the pride of the worker ='s the pride of the nation ='s the pride of a company.

    would be nice.
    Reply
  • phantom505 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    What about SOI? As far as I know Intel never implemented it.

    So how do you figure AMD is a year behind Intel when they went VERY different strategies and routes?

    Reply
  • Spoonbender - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Because AMD is going to have 65nm a year after Intel. Simple as that. Yes, of course they both have some different technologies, but a 90nm chip has a bigger die area than an equivalent 65nm chip. That means a 90nm chip is more expensive to produce, because there's room for fewer chips per wafer.

    What you might have missed is that this isn't a question of performance. AMD is not behind Intel at all when it comes to making good, fast CPU's.

    They are behind when it comes to producing them as cheap as possibly. Because they won't be able to shrink to 65nm until a year after Intel.
    Reply
  • fishbits - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    quote:

    The speeches were concluded with a ceremonial "raising of the wafer"

    Heheheh. Geeks. Was this accompanied by "Thus Spake Zarathustra?"

    Anyhow, congrats to AMD and Germany, great news.
    Reply
  • Questar - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    I think it would be better news if it was AMD and the US. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Uh, the US is the most economical strong country in the world. Stop being such a stupid patriot and realize that all people of the world benefit when any one country benefits from technological innovation. Man, we really need to get Americans to shutup and stop being so greedy.

    By the way, I'm an American. :)
    Reply
  • overclockingoodness - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Actually, it's better AMD didn't open a Fab in the U.S. They would have to pay much higher wages, taxes etc.

    By opening a fab in Germany, they will hopefully save that money to expand (notice I didn't say they will pass on the savings to its customers, which would never happen) and they need this money if they want to start construction of a new fab plant in 2008.
    Reply
  • eljefe2 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    higher wages???


    have you seen the european euro vs us dollar? its really destroying us. (us the um, US) East germany does actually have lower wages than we do. However, they have amazing schools over there all free, all health care free, 1 month paid leave a year, free child care.... The amount the corporations actually pay per person is very high. I think they just put this plant there because, as the article notes, the people there are very good workers and very knowledgable. not ever corporation follows the juvenile philosophy of "give it to a pathetic third world nation and see what profits we can make". It is good to see that. After all, 27% of US population are direct descendents from Germany. More than any other culture percentage wise. The better europe does, the more the structure of corporations are bent to a first world society vs a 10 cents an hour slave labor force structure. THis is good for all who live in the western world.

    Reply
  • eljefe2 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    I rather it be in a place where they pay real wages. at least it then stops some trends in big business.


    And yes prior to amd k6-II, amd made some bad things. Then the k6-III, the athlon, xp, a64, dual core, all trumped intel crap. it took me a many years before I realized this.
    I think that has been a while now. xp onward has obviously beat out intel for home use, and now, in every use (besides vector graphics, and of course, we all are manipulating vector graphic intensive programs as we type.... yea....)


    the only saving thing is pentium M for intel. and they have refused to release that as a desktop chip for many years. how crappy can you get. I just want to know WHY people are so supportive of a poorly serving the public company which HAD the means to provide much better products than AMD yet refused to.
    Reply
  • eljefe2 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    .... i meant i rather it be in a place that gives real wages, either US or in Europe, other than some random asian country. Reply
  • nserra - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Remember that AMD processors are not made of the same "compounds" of Intel processors.

    Maybe AMD could also launch a 65nm based processor based on "compounds" of Intel processors.

    As

    Intel could "never" launch NOW a 65nm based processor using AMD "compounds".
    Reply
  • eljefe2 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    15-18% difference in wattage pull at max draw and no difference in performance is what intel got out of 65nm process.

    THAT's IT.

    at that level, amd still blows it away at 90 nm. amd hasnt moved to 65nm because it is not a crappy chip company. it always does better than the other companies at the larger nm size. Why should it have to change? when it does, it will be even better, which will be fantastic, not just an inflated figure. Idle wattages are most important and so intel hasnt anything to say about that at all still with their 65nm process. (chips dont go full max all that often in the real world, and when they do, the 65nm intels are still power hogs.)
    Reply
  • Shintai - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    You mean 65nm suck like:

    Dothan -> Yonah: 1 extra core, better FPU, better SSE, higher FSB and better cache for 4W extra (31W total) aswell as cheaper to make than a single Dothan? (A dual Dothan with 667FSB would use about 60-65W)

    Prescott -> Cedar Mill(?): 15/25W drop in powerusage and 25-30% cheaper to manuafacture?
    Smithfield -> "Whatever the dualcore is named": Same as above, just with a higher wattage drop.

    Ye that kinda seem to suck really bad...

    If you think AMD or Intel will boost speedgrades alot with 65nm you gonna be so wrong. It will be more cores, cheaper cores and less power as primary focus.

    65nm is just giving Intel a better price/volume advantage the next 12 months.
    Reply
  • Spoonbender - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    haha, that's funny. We need more fanboys who don't know what they're talking about.

    First, AMD has made some lousy processors in the past, far crappier than anything Intel could ever dream of.
    Second, the main reason for advancing to 65nm is not performance, it's cost.
    AMD could certainly benefit from doubling the number of dies per wafer. Even if they OMFGR0XXORZ Intel's chips performance-wise.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    quote:

    First, AMD has made some lousy processors in the past, far crappier than anything Intel could ever dream of.


    Spoken like a true fanboi.
    Reply
  • trooper11 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    but the point is it wont kill amd if they dont have 65nm parts out to market will the 2nd half of 06 Reply
  • Spoonbender - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Well, it will prevent them from lowering prices as much as Intel can do without actually losing money. Of course, that probably won't *kill* them, but it can hurt them. They only recently got into the habit of making a profit at all. Having their production costs around twice Intel's level is bad. (Although admittedly, I believe the P4 dies are way bigger than A64's, so they do partially compensate there) Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Don't use NetBurst as a yardstick for the 65nm process, think of it this way, if the 65nm process can reduce heat disppation for NetBurst technology, think of what it could for Pentium M based technology or Merom/Conroe.

    Remember heat disppation was reduced on the Banias to Dothan Pentium M transition and that core still uses the same 90nm process as Prescott did.

    Reply
  • Kalessian - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    I'm sure AMD thought long and hard about making this fab 65nm right from the start. I'm not an advising panel of experts, so I don't know anyone who is. So 90nm must be better than 65nm for AMD right now. Thus, whatever is better for AMD is better for all of us.

    I really hope that this fab puts AMD on the map. I want to see AMD processors in my local computer stores and in Dell/HP/Gateway TV ads. I can't wait to see the outcome.

    And next year we'll have 65nm K8's. Are there any plans for the next generation of AMD cores? What would 65nm bring, 3.2ghz speeds?
    Reply
  • Questar - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    "Thus, whatever is better for AMD is better for all of us"

    No. Whatever is better for AMD is better for AMD. They do not care what is better for you. They exist for one reason only, generate maximum profit for shareholders. If this happens by coincidence to benefit you, them so be it. But never think AMD is concerned about your interests at all.
    Reply
  • Xenoterranos - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Really, to say AMD cares nothing about it's consumers is ludacris. AMD practivally led the overclocking movement, making it widely known how to overclock there procs. The FX line is even completely unlocked from the get-go! AMD cares more than Intel does about it's customers, if they didn't they'd be in another buisness, one where it's much easier to make money. Reply
  • overclockingoodness - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Actually, I disagree with you. The only reason AMD cares about its customers (and overclocking) is because it wants to sell more CPUs. If AMD was as big as Intel, they would have a completely different philosophy (similar to Intel). I agree with the poster who said companies only care about profits and that's true. Making you believe that a company cares for you is a clever marketing ploy that's apparently working out for them. Wait another few years and you'll see how AMD's stance changes against its customers.

    Why exactly would they be in a different business? AMD is known for CPUs, you can't revamp the entire company and move to a completely different sector overnight (or ever in that case).
    Reply
  • Kalessian - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    First off, I left out a sentence or two in my first comment. Sorry for the confusion.

    Blah blah none of us can say what's best for AMD because none of us are qualified for it. Then I meant to say something about how fierce competition is better for all of us. Since AMD is the smaller company, as long as it does well it's actually fighting for the stability of competition. Thus, whatever is good for AMD is good for us.

    My argument is based on AMD being the smaller company. Obviously, what's good for Intel is probably bad for us (Intel owns 99% of market and it stagnates).

    Anyway, in a totally nonrelated argument, I don't think it matters what the intentions of a company are. Whether it is sincerely concerned about consumers or contractually concerned about them, it doesn't make much of a difference in the short-term.
    Reply
  • overclockingoodness - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    Yeah, sure AMD is fighting for the stability of competition, but for how long? As soon as AMD is anywhere close to Intel's market share (around the 50-50 mark), it'll be exactly like Intel. Look at AMD now, they aren't doing any major architectural improvements to get ready for the future because A64 is so superior. Even though Intel has been behind AMD ever since the launch of A64, it's not going to stay that way for long. Intel is starting to push the same things as AMD, but if AMD doesn't improve, Intel will take the lead (of course, that's bound to happen with every product launch).



    quote:

    Anyway, in a totally nonrelated argument, I don't think it matters what the intentions of a company are.


    You are right, it doesn't matter, but some people don't understand that. Half of them are just supporting AMD (in the lawsuit and otherwise) because they think AMD is a "their" company (a company that supports its customers), but they are forgeting the fundamental rule of business. In business, the first and foremost thing is profits and how will those come? From customer's pockets. I think we are already seeing an example with expensive dual-core AMD CPUs compared to Intel's offerings; it's only going to get worse in the long run. Half of these people put so much faith in these companies, but ultimately, they don't care about you. And that's when they realize that every company operates exactly the same way. A company (at least as big as AMD) that supports its customers either won't be in the business for too long and is completely stupid to begin with.

    quote:

    Whether it is sincerely concerned about consumers or contractually concerned about them, it doesn't make much of a difference in the short-term.


    You mean it doesn't matter in the long-term...
    Reply
  • overclockingoodness - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    quote:

    ...Intel will take the lead (of course, that's bound to happen with every product launch).


    Okay, that came out wrong. What I meant to say was that whether its Intel vs. AMD or ATI vs. NVIDIA, companies will try to do each other and get the top crown with each product launch. Sometimes it'll be Intel while other times it'll be AMD.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    No, its not that simple. They arent going to maximize anything but their loss if what they do is not good for the individual. So, the most important thing for a company in AMD's position is: make the customers happy or else you wont sell shit.

    That said, we desktop monkeys are not the be all and end all of AMD's target markets anymore. That would be servers and mobile.
    Reply
  • trooper11 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    actually thats not very true.

    if amd didnt address at least some of our 'interests' then they wouldnt be very succesful. they have been fighting an uphill battle form the start, and one thing that has kept them aflaot is trying cater to intersts of the enthusiast market, and now the server market as they expand.

    sure they want to make a profit. but you dont make a product without at least considering those intersts of your customers.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    quote:

    No. Whatever is better for AMD is better for AMD. They do not care what is better for you


    Actually, he said "Thus, whatever is better for AMD is better for all of us" which means that a successful AMD is better for us consumers...nothing said about AMD's intentions or feelings. I happen to think he's correct in that having 2 equally balanced semiconductor companies competing for our business is much better all around.
    When/if AMD hits 50% marketshare, I think we all will be better off.
    Reply
  • ceefka - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    50%? That will take a long time still, if ever. I suppose Intel will have done something significant or a lot of significant stuff before that or they're toast. Reply
  • matthewfoley - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    In this case, because AMD is the underdog with the cheaper chips almost across the board, then if they claim more of the market, prices will go down, which should be better for all of us. Reply
  • IdahoB - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    "While we don't have a 200mm wafer here to compare sizes with, imagine the wafer pictured above, but smaller."

    Outstanding :)
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    got a big LOL out of that one myself... came into the comments just to comment on it. Reply
  • nserra - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    I really laugh at that too ;) Reply
  • Lord Zado - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Save picture, go to photo editing program of choice, scale by 66.67% and viola! A 200mm wafer :) Reply
  • Diasper - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Unfortunately, at its grand opening, Fab 36 is still a 90nm-only fab; throughout the next year, AMD will begin the transition to 65nm production. The first CPUs built at Fab 36 will be shipping in the first quarter of 2006, with the first 65nm chips leaving Fab 36 by the end of 2006.


    That's really disappointing and does indicate that AMD *is* significantly behind. My hope was for early 65nm production for AMD to increase profits but more importantly get 65nm chips out to us - which given trying to manufacture in bulk would mean 65nm chips for S939 of at least dual-core.

    Any idea when Intel is meant to swing into 'full' 65nm production? Early 2006?
    Reply
  • Viditor - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    quote:

    That's really disappointing and does indicate that AMD *is* significantly behind.

    No, it really doesn't. Guys, think about it and remember back when 90nm was introduced first by Intel.
    The fact then (and now) was that even at 130nm, AMD had superior chips compared to Intel's 90nm parts. For AMD to convert to 65nm parts now would mean they are just throwing their 90nm production lines in the garbage, when they are still churning out chips that will exceed Intel's 65nm parts! That would be a terrible waste and would increase the cost of the AMD chips significantly...and for what?
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    You can say all you want about K8 beating NetBurst, but Conroe/Merom/etc. are going to put up a hell of a fight. No one really knows yet (that can talk, at least) how the next gen Intel architecture performs. Do you really think Intel is planning on just matching K8, though?

    Part 2: AMD is really behind on manufacturing plants, but that comes from total revenues. AMD has only a few plants, and I think Fab 30 is the only 90nm plant. (I could be wrong - maybe they have two 90nm plants, not counting fab 36?) Meanwhile, Intel has something like 9 in full production of 90nm parts. Oh yeah, and this is AMD's first 300mm fab, where all of Intel's have been 300mm for... five years? More?

    As I said, it comes down to revenues. 40 billion vs. 4 billion, isn't it? Or maybe 30 billion and 8 billion? The point is that Intel is making a lot more money, which allows them to build more fabs, which allows them to procure more OEM partners.... It's a viscious cycle (from AMD's perspective).

    But hey, competition is good. Statements like "AMD is behind on manufacturing" are true, and sugar coating it doesn't do anyone any favors. That's the same as the "AMD had superior 130nm chips compared to Intel's 90nm parts." What are you trying to do, get a job with AMD? Was Barton better than Prescott? Not really. Is Newcastle better than Dothan? It depends on the market, and the mobile market has answered with an emphatic NO! Are Newcastle and Hammer better than Prescott, Irwindale, Sonoma, etc.? In many cases, yes. Too bad Intel makes and sells about 10X as many of those as AMD... which comes back to manufacturing. Long term, this plant opening should only be a good thing for AMD, but it's far too early to declare it a complete success.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Conroe/Merom/etc. are going to put up a hell of a fight. No one really knows yet (that can talk, at least) how the next gen Intel architecture performs


    Ummm...If no one really knows, how do you know that they are going to "put up one hell of a fight"? :)
    quote:

    Do you really think Intel is planning on just matching K8, though?

    I think they are planning on doing the very best that they can, as will AMD.
    Intel's Nextgen does indeed sound good on paper, but so did Prescot. BTW, do you really think AMD is going to stop innovating between now and then as well?

    Part2: AMD is only "behind" on the number of Fabs (the quality of their Fab30 is the best in the world, and they have all of the awards to prove it). If they had the same number of Fabs as Intel, they would be bankrupt tomorrow (or already) because:
    1. They don't sell anywhere near the range of semiconductors that Intel does (not just CPUs), so those extra Fabs would be just sitting there.
    2. AMD is still locked out of a lot of the market (vis a vis the antitrust action), so again those extra Fabs would be just sitting there.
    3. For a list of Intel's Fabs, check http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/manufacturing/...">here.
    Note that the majority are 130nm and 200mm...also note that very few of their Fabs (though it doesn't say this on the list) make CPUs.

    quote:

    Statements like "AMD is behind on manufacturing" are true, and sugar coating it doesn't do anyone any favors

    I disagree. Quantity does not equate to better quality or even making more money. To give you an example, Intel uses a manufacturing method called "copy everything"...what this means is that they develop and tweak the chip on a pilot line, then copy all of the parameters to all of their Fabs that manufacture that part. This is a very smart thing to do if you have Fabs all over the place, but it makes future changes nearly impossible to accomplish quickly (because they have to first change the pilot Fab, then refit all of the rest of the Fabs.
    OTOH, AMD has a dynamically changing model utilizing their proprietary APM software. They can even change a single wafer in the middle of processing it!
    You should read http://tinyurl.com/b9llw">this article!
    APM is (IMHO) the main reason AMD has done as well as they have been for the last few years...
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    "Ummm...If no one really knows, how do you know that they are going to "put up one hell of a fight"? :)"

    It's the general attitude of Intel right now. They are not trying to tell everyone that NetBurst is great, and have freely admitted on occasion to the problems with the design. To me, Prescott looked like a bad design from the beginning. More pipelines (when Northwood already was too long) combined with higher cache latencies? I never did like the design much.

    Conroe appears to be taking everything good from both NetBurst and Pentium M/Yonah and enhancing it. I expect Yonah to basically equal Athlon X2 Toledo clock for clock, and in several instances beat it. I also expect Conroe to end up about 25% faster than Yonah clock for clock. If both those guesses are correct, Conroe at 2.0 GHz would basically match the X2 4800+ (and I admit I might be wrong).

    Once Yonah is released, though, we'll have an even better estimate of Conroe performance. Conroe goes to 4-wide issue, which should at least add 10 to 20% more performance if done properly. Double the L2 cache from 2MB shared to 4MB shared, and you might see another 10% performance boost.

    So what does AMD have planned for the near future? The only thing I see coming is DDR2 support. Hopefully, there's more to the socket S1/M2/F chips than that, but if so AMD isn't talking. The higher bandwidth of DDR2 might add 10% to the performance of the Athlon chips, but unless I hear something more I expect Conroe to outperform M2 chips clock for clock. If AMD can command a clock speed advantage, we might end up with a tie.

    I'm not being anti-AMD or pro-Intel; this is simply the way I see things right now. I really hope AMD can prove my guesses wrong (from their side). If Intel can match or exceed my guesses, more power to them.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    quote:

    To me, Prescott looked like a bad design from the beginning. More pipelines (when Northwood already was too long) combined with higher cache latencies?

    Fair enough...but didn't we only learn about that sometime near the launch? For the years prior to launch, Intel was saying that it was going to scale beyond 5GHz...(I believe they even mentioned a 10GHz possibility)
    quote:

    I expect Yonah to basically equal Athlon X2 Toledo clock for clock, and in several instances beat it

    Clock for clock (IMHO) isn't really a valuable comparison. If you compared (for example) the Athlon to the P4 clock for clock, you'd wonder why Intel was even in the CPU business...
    I realize that the Yonah architecture is a much closer comparison, but we are going to have to see exactly what kind of "clocks" are available when it's released...and don't forget that Yonah will be operating without 64bit (which helps it tremendously in performance but may hurt it quite a bit in sales).

    As to Intel's Nextgen architecture, I agree that it sounds good on paper, but there are any number of unanswered questions about it that we won't know for quite awhile! For instance, how well will it be able to handle cache coherency on a shared cache? How efficient will the added issues be? etc...
    quote:

    So what does AMD have planned for the near future?

    Admittedly, we know even less about AMDs future...here are some of the things Anand mentioned
    1. Hypertransport 3 then 4
    2. On-chip co-processors (North and South bridges as well as PCIe?)
    3. FBDimms...this will be huge in the Opterons!
    But I agree it would be nice to have more info...it's quite possible that AMD are keeping quiet because they want to hand Intel some surprises, but that means that any changes they are planning won't require external development (or they'd have to announce sooner rather than later).
    quote:

    I'm not being anti-AMD or pro-Intel

    I know you're not...and I appreciate the debate! If you want, we can change sides and I'll take Intel and you can take AMD next time. :)

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    HT 3 and 4 don't excite me much. For SMP setups, that's useful. I'm fine with dual-core, though (I don't even tax that), and since HT is really just used for the CPU to NB connection, it rarely gets anywhere near maxed out. It won't be bad to have more, but a faster HT speed isn't going to be the panacea that a faster cache or higher clock speed would be.

    I really hope AMD is just keeping quiet, but if so their partners are also in the dark. That leads me to believe that it's more likely that there just isn't that much in the way of major changes coming. FDB is something that's useful for a certain market, but the home user isn't that market. Sort of like selling registered memory systems to the home user... hmmm, where have I seen that before? ;)

    Yonah's lack of 64-bit might prove to be a problem long term, which is why Conroe (P8? Yeah, let's just call it P8 for now!) will be important. However, I've tried XP-64 with an Athlon 64, and frankly I think it's crap. Worse driver support, worse installation, worse software compatibility, and to top it all off performance was no better in any of the applications I tried.

    Until we get fully 64-bit OS, drivers, and applications, 64-bit support does nothing. Vista will be best case scenario, I think, and really we need to have systems shipping with at least 4GB of RAM before I'm concerned. 2GB is still very high-end for the desktop, and only one typical application (Battlefield 2) shows real benefits. I suppose Photoshop users that like to open a bunch of large images at the same time will also benefit from 2GB of RAM. (I'll have to try that one of these days....)

    Lack of 64-bit capability will hurt it from the marketing perspective, but in real world usage I don't think it will matter much. That goes double for the mobile sector, where 1GB (2x512MB) configurations are high-end, and 2x1GB builds are the maximum amount of RAM you can have anyway. 64-bits with 2GB of RAM is such a niche market that I don't bother worrying about it. It might get you 10% performance boost at best, and only compared to generic code that doesn't use MMX/SSE for 64-bit int calculations. Bleh.

    Okay, enough babble. We'll sort out the real victor in mid-2006. AMD (IMO) really needs more than just DDR2 and a few tweaks (in 2006) to convince me they'll maintain a performance lead. K9 (*woof!*), where are you? WHAT are you? Please don't say you're just quad-core, because I'm barely sold on dual-core for many people, and quad-core will be of true use to a fraction of the market. (I've done software development, and I just don't see multi-threaded code that really benefits from SMP coming soon enough to make multi-core the best path forward - outside of certain workstation/server tasks, of course). At least a theoretical 33% increase in dispatch rates (P8) has a clear benefit to most applications.
    Reply
  • jiulemoigt - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    quote:

    and since HT is really just used for the CPU to NB connection,

    well I read that and I can tell how long you have been using PCs
    because the reason so many people jumped on the AMD 64 before there
    was a cunsumer{non workstation} 64bit OS was because the mem controler
    is on die, which reduces latecny and and allows the cpu to go directly
    to the ram and get what it needs with out calling to the north bridge
    and then to the ram. when they first came out with NF3 the buss was
    slower and it showed when via came out with a 1gb bus to nvidia 800mb
    bus if they can make that bus faster then they can data too and from
    the cpu faster, which is very significant, even on a home users machine.
    Of course a faster or large cache on the cpu will be faster by magnitudes
    than any off die mem unless it is the first time the cpu needs the data
    like in rendering where the data is almost always new, and the cache can't
    help unless it is prefetching the data, which is why half of most modern
    cpu are prefetch logic {though they all have different names to do the
    same thing}. Which most of the above beyound most home users to even
    understand which develpers will continue to have to fight for decent
    systems because the bosses home machine does not use 10% of his systems
    resources.


    As to AMD leaving their partners in the dark most changes can be down on die
    without effecting the pin out it only makes sense when you sell both the north bridge and the cpu to keep changing the pin out to force users to upgrade their mobos.

    quote:

    Until we get fully 64-bit OS, drivers, and applications, 64-bit support does nothing. Vista will be best case scenario, I think, and really we need to have systems shipping with at least 4GB of RAM before I'm concerned. 2GB is still very high-end for the desktop, and only one typical application (Battlefield 2) shows real benefits. I suppose Photoshop users that like to open a bunch of large images at the same time will also benefit from 2GB of RAM. (I'll have to try that one of these days....)


    this quote is what made me log in and post, most computer profits are made on volume not home users and those who welcome vista deserve what they get, with vista your data is no longer yours, I'm not even refering to files you get from other people but stuff you create on your own software. On top of that I have a machine running a full 64 bit OS and it is fast, only it does not play my games... for games and only games do I run a windows box despite being in charge of windows 2000 pro, windows 2000 server, windows 2003 server, the sql sever app and all the idiots who perfer to use outlook still at work. My work will pay for me to have copy of any the windows for home use and I'm still runing 2000 over xp because it is faster on the same hardware, windows xp codepath is done windows 64 is based on server 2003 which is built on 2000 server with a few more service added and some annoing wizzards for domain control for those who don't understand what an A record is. Also any 32bit windows shipping with more that 3gb of ramm is going to have trouble four gb is the limit but windows apps in a 32 bit enviroment can not touch that last gb. Though I'm considering using server 2003 64 bit for my gaming machine since it does not have some of the crap{outlook express, burning toy and a few others} built in and handles threads better {not refering to hyper threads}. If i'm harsh it is because I get sick of people posting out of their ass.

    for anyone thinking I"m anti-MS I'm part of MSDN, and upset that an OS which was going in a direction of usiblity has made changes to a business OS that hurts the bisness aspects of it, the problem is their business OS was outperforming their home OS so they put the guys in charge of the Home OS in charge of both and let them break the solid bussiness one.
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    Yes, I liked Windows 2000 Pro, it was lean and mean and got the job done with the minimum of fuss or overheads.

    But I have to admit XP has its bonuses like last night when "Webhancer" was sneakily installed onto my box with some "free" software, and removing it as recommended (by Add/Remove Programs) resulted in a totally dead net connection. That's spyware which interferes with critical Windows files in action, it can't uninstall itself properly and leaves you screwed. Fortunately booting up XP in Safe Mode and using a System Restore to earlier that evening got everything back to normal, I couldn't have done that with Win2K, not without third-party software which I'd have already need to have installed anyway.

    I've often been tempted to try Windows 2003 Server, but I've always been concerned that a "server" version would not be suitable for home use especially when gaming, much like Windows 2000 Server. If the home and server products are almost merged now like you suggest, maybe it is better to treat Windows 2003 as the last safe version of Windows before MS take away control of your computer with Vista. It certainly seems on the MS site that Windows 2003 and XP are treated very similarly, so maybe the "server" tag with 2003 is just to clarify that it supports multi-processor computers.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    The NVIDIA nF3 150 was a 600 MHz HT connection, running 8-bits in one direction. Of course that was slower than 800x16-bits, as 600x8-bits would be less than half as fast. I've done plenty of testing with current AMD systems, and the difference between 1000x16 and 600x16 is not that great.

    Overall, though, maybe you ought to do a bit more research. http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=1883&am...">nForce3 150 wasn't that slow, which only serves to support what I said. Yes, a few benchmarks can put the slower HT performance of the chipset in a bad light, but if they had even had 600x16 for the upstream connection, that would have basically fixed the bottleneck.

    Regarding 64-bit, you completely missed the point of what I said. I repeat, it doesn't matter much unless you're running over 2GB of RAM. I haven't seen such a desktop system, though I'm sure a few people have 4x1GB just because they can. 64-bit OSes in the home and business will really only be useful when we're using more RAM than at present.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    I thought of a good analogy to explain my point...
    1. Firstly remember that no matter how many Fabs you have, there are still only a certain number of chips sold each year.
    2. I believe that the current estimate for total x86 chips used globally is ~240 million/year. AMD has the capacity to produce ~50-60 million of those with just Fab30 on 200mm at 90nm. If you add Fab36 (even at 90nm) on 300mm, that's a capacity of much more than 50% of the total x86 cpus used in the world (and closer to 75% at 65nm)! What good would it do to have more Fabs at this point?

    On to my anology...if you drive to work and back every day in a traffic jam, and you have a choice between a V12 car or a V6, which is the better car to drive (considering gas prices, etc...)?
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Which is better to drive? Pentium M, I guess. But not really for gamers - who are the equivalent of 4x4 offroad types or race car drivers, depending on perspective.

    The fab capacity has other advantages besides CPUs produced. What costs more to make, Smithfield or Toledo? Both are similar in size, I believe, and while Toledo has a clear performance advantage, Intel can produce twice as many chips per wafer, allowing things like a $250 820 instead of a $380 3800+. (Yes, I know the 3800+ actually comes out ahead of the 840 in most tests. Cost is the bigger concern for businesses, though.)
    -----------
    Here's another take on the Intel vs. AMD "war":

    P3 vs. Athlon = tie, more or less. Athlon is a good design.

    P4 vs. Athlon XP = P4 wins in performance, but costs more. (Don't try to sell me on a 3200+ actually beating or even matching a 3.2C, because it didn't.) Athlon XP is a tweaked Athlon core, while P4 is totally new.

    P4 Prescott vs. Athlon 64 = A64 wins. Prescott is once again a pretty major revamp of NetBurst. Calling it the same architecture as Northwood is like calling the Athlon 64 the same as the original Athlon. There are many similarities, but the change to the pipelines and other internals is quite drastic. Unfortunately, many were marketing driven changes as opposed to engineering ("clock speed sells!").

    PM vs. Athlon 64 = tie. Athlon 64 is often faster, but uses more power. Dothan on a desktop platform puts up some very good numbers in many tests, and only raw FP/SSE performance hold it back. PM is based off the earlier P6 core, but with many major changes. It can easily be considered a new architecture.

    Yonah vs. Athlon 64/X2 = ?. I'm going to guess Yonah comes out ahead overall, but not by a huge margin. With A64 running at up to 2.8 GHz, it will likely lead performance overall, but not clock-for-clock.

    Conroe vs. M2 = ?. As stated earlier, I'll bet on Conroe. This is a pretty major overhaul of the PM architecture. M2 is a tweaked K8, which was a tweaked K7.

    So, keeping score, Intel has had P6, NetBurst, PM, and an upcoming Conroe architecture. AMD has had K7 and K8. Dual-core, Intel has NetBurst and PM, as well as Conroe. AMD has K8. Intel has done a lot of running around, but much of it to no avail. Or rather, half of their work was in areas that really weren't that wise - and the engineers actually knew this! Now they're forgetting about the marketing war and simply focusing on true performance.

    Even with their mistakes, Intel has still driven a lot of technological advancements, and I for one expect the next architecture to shed some shackles and allow the Intel engineers to really strut their stuff. I've known some Intel guys that are really sharp, and there's little reason other than management/marketing for many of the past errors.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Which is better to drive? Pentium M, I guess. But not really for gamers - who are the equivalent of 4x4 offroad types or race car drivers, depending on perspective

    Actually, games is the only area where Pentium M is competitive...(please note that I said "competitive", not superior) everything else they are significantly weaker at.
    quote:

    What costs more to make, Smithfield or Toledo?

    This isn't a question of Fab capacity, it's design.
    Yes, it's more efficient to slap 2 chips together than to manufacture them on a single die...but you pay for it in performance (as you've noted)
    Yes, 300mm can produce twice as many chips/wafer as 200mm (die size being equal)...but a 300mm wafer costs 50% more than a 200mm wafer. And being able to tweak yield efficiency on your line at a milliseconds notice will give you an overall advantage so that Smithfield may actually cost the same or more to manufacture (remember that even though they sell them cheaper, doesn't mean they cost less to manufacture...).
    quote:

    P4 vs. Athlon XP = P4 wins in performance, but costs more. (Don't try to sell me on a 3200+ actually beating or even matching a 3.2C, because it didn't.)

    Then we shall have to agree to disagree...later Northwoods were a definite Intel win, earlier Northwoods were an Athlon win...
    quote:

    PM vs. Athlon 64 = tie. Athlon 64 is often faster, but uses more power

    Hmmm...I think you need to do some reading on this.
    1. Turion and PM use the same power (don't confuse power use and TDP, they aren't the same thing)
    2. A64 and Turion win every bench except games (most by a substantial margin) against the PM. And the PM is unable to run 64bit (meaning that it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison)
    quote:

    Yonah vs. Athlon 64/X2 = ?. I'm going to guess Yonah comes out ahead overall, but not by a huge margin

    I'll bet a lot that you're very wrong about that one...! The comparison will be the Yonah (32bit only) vs the dual core Turion64...due out near the same time.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    I'll give you Athlon XP over Willamette, and I'll give you XP in price/performance over P4. In terms of raw performance, though, once Intel shifted to Northwood I never really felt AMD had an overall performance lead. There were certain tasks where they did well - they maintained a lead in compiling performance basically since the launch of the Athlon XP - but looking at a wide variety of uses (gaming, video, audio, office, etc.) I have to give Northwood the win. Don't get me wrong: I went from a P3/Celeron 1.1A to a Barton core and never actually owned a Willamette or Northwood of my own. But if money wasn't a concern, I would have stuck with Intel chips up until the Athlon 64 launch.

    Regarding Turion vs. Dothan (which is the fairest match), I think Dothan still comes out ahead in power. I haven't been able to get a Turion chip, though. :( I do know that a fully loaded 2.0 GHz Dothan desktop only draws about 55W idle and 120W load (and most of that is for the GPU on load). A 90nm SOI Sempron is 110W idle and 190W load in a similar configuration. Even taking into account chipsets and performance differences, there's a pretty substantial power draw advantage for the Dothan. It a 2.0 GHz Turion really draws significantly less power than a 1.8 GHz Sempron 64 Palermo (what I tested)... maybe it's a tie. I really doubt that the Sempron is using more than 35W-40W on its own, though, despite the 65W rating.

    That's all still ignoring the fact that Dothan is really a better design for mobile computing, though. Turion is to Athlon 64 what P3-M was to P3. In other words, it was a minor tweak, some binning for lower voltage, and presto! You have a mobile computing processor. Any way you look at it, though, Dothan offers some amazing performance per Watt; end of story. Price, on the other hand.... :(
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link

    Jarred needs to not use the word "though" as much. That's what happens when you post without proper proofing.... *grumble* Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Well said:)

    Well with Fab 36 coming online, this and AMD's Fab 30 are AMD's only fabs for CPU production so you can basically say regarding the CPU market AMD only has 2 90nm Fabs, 1 with 200mm Wafer tech and 1 with 300mm Wafer tech.

    Well let me see Intel currently has Fab D1C, D1D, 11x, 24 that I know of currently that are on 90nm & 300 mm Wafer production. Intel is also converting Fab 18 for 90nm production on 200mm Wafers.

    For 65nm production, Intel is converting existing 90nm D1D which is 300mm Wafer. Plus 2 more Fabs for 65nm production which are Fab 12 & 24-2 also with 300 mm Wafers

    Intel also has Fab 17, 20 & 22 for 130nm production with 200mm Wafers.

    Intel & AMD both have auxilirary Fabs for other productions such as flash memory for example.

    But suffice it to say, Intel currently commands far more capacity then AMD does.

    In the last year for Intel & AMD their gross incomes were 34.2 Billion vs 5 Billion.

    Yeah I also dislike when people say general statements like AMD 130nm products are better then 90nm products, as it won't hold for all cases.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Oh joy, 65nm and a inferior design vs. 90nm with a superior design and later on the same at 65nm. Thats not nearly as disappointing as what intel fed us over the last 2 years. Reply
  • trooper11 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    what is so dissapointing here?

    amd was later to the 90nm game then intel, but you dont see it hurting them much at all?

    hey if I have to wait an extra 6 months for 65nm that will be as much a success as the 90nm parts, then im more then happy with this.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    The first 65nm chips are slated for January, but you wont see a full transition particularly in the server sector till the middle of next year. This time next year they won't have any 90nm chips if their roadmaps are correct.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • Questar - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Kristopher,
    The AMD press release disagrees with your timeline:

    With the production ramp in Fab 36 progressing on schedule, the company intends to make 90nm production shipments in the first quarter of 2006 and begin 65nm production by the end of 2006. AMD has set a goal to be substantially converted to 65nm in Fab 36 by mid-2007.
    Reply
  • Questar - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Whoops, I just realized you were talking about Intel roadmaps.

    I suck.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Isn't he refering to Intel? Regarding the Presler processors? Reply
  • Questar - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    That's a direct quote, I forgo to add the quote marks :( Reply
  • DAPUNISHER - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    With the ability to supply a much larger percentage of the market in the relatively near future, perhaps Dell&AMD will finally be able to do business?

    The litigation against Intel may prove beneficial, even without a favorable ruling, if it prevents Intc from leaning on Dell to remain exclusive. Certainly, they should continue to be able to provide very aggressive pricing to Dell, but without any potentially heavy-handed conditions/terms attached.
    Reply
  • Spoonbender - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Am I the only one who's a bit disappointed by that? So they're a full year behind Intel on this? Reply
  • MrEMan - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    And just how many of Intel's many fabs have actually been converted, and what is their schedule for conversion. With out knowing that how can one make a judgement as to how far behind AMD is?

    Also, what is more preferred: better processors across the board at 90 nm or lesser processors at 65 nm. If I recall correctly the concentration of heat goes up as the die size is reduced which would portend greater heat problems for Intel, not less, at least until they redesign based on the PIII/Pentium M higher IPC/lower clock speed internal designs.
    Reply
  • Johnmcl7 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    If you read the articles on Intel's new 65nm you'll see the power usage and thermal dissipation is lower than the 90nm prescotts.

    John
    Reply
  • Johnmcl7 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    As in their 65nm netburst processors, not the next generation P-m based designs.

    John
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Themral density may be increased, by overall thermal output of processors on 65nm process is reduced compared to 90nm for NetBurst at least. That is why CPU's are equipped with heatspreaders to help disappate the heat over a large surface area.

    As long as the processor runs stable and reliably there should be no complaints.

    The slower 65nm transition at Fab 36 is expected. AMD roadmaps don't indicate any 65nm products for the first half of 2006, with Windsors, Orleans & Manilla Socket M2 based processors still at 90nm node. Hopefully we will see some 65nm products on the roadmaps for 2nd half 2006, which is around the time of Intel introduction of 2nd Generation processors on 65nm tech namely Merom/Conroe.
    Reply
  • nserra - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Remember that AMD processors are not made of the same "compounds" of Intel processors.

    Maybe AMD could also launch a 65nm based processor based on "compounds" of Intel processors.

    As

    Intel could "never" launch a 65nm based processor using AMD "compounds".
    Reply
  • smn198 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Hope this means cheaper processors as AMD is able to up output, reduce margins and force Intel to do the same but where can I get one of those wafers? Reply
  • ariafrost - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    My AMD stock probably will jump today ;) Reply
  • Questar - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    Why would it? This is not news, this "grand opening" has already been priced into the current price. Be aware this plant is not producing any sellable chips at this point. Reply
  • bigpimpatl - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link

    ooooh nice =) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now