Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

Previous 10 Next 10

To: FJB who wrote (219048)	12/5/2006 3:25:49 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

You aren't in such a state of denial that you don't think AMD is shipping 65nm part, are you? I am certainly not making that claim. Why would you think so?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read

To: mas_ who wrote (219050)	12/5/2006 3:26:55 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

Mas! What do you think about AMD's lack of review samples, lack of die photos and size information, and the Inq's claim that the die is ~125mm^2 ? How did that compare with your expectations?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

From: dougSF30	12/5/2006 3:29:48 PM
	of 275869

news.com.com Wow. These 65nm parts include the SiGe strain, and even with that, no performance benefit. I'm surprised.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (219015)	12/5/2006 3:30:20 PM
From: kpf	of 275869

Hi Elmer, hope you and everybody on the thread is well. With the smaller die size AMD should see better yield in terms of both percent and total die. All else being equal. I don't see why. All else being equal, for a reasonable approximation to yields I'd suggest rather to look at transistorcount than diesize. However, the part I fully agree in is all things are not always equal..., because designs for manufacturability compensate for the above by means of more redundancy for higher transistorcounts. Edit: Synopsis: For a given design adding redundancy obviously increases diesize and yield. :) K. Congrats to Dresden for the milestone. Kudos to Sunnyvale for decency of todays communication. Hats off!

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (2)

To: mas_ who wrote (219050)	12/5/2006 3:36:18 PM
From: Rink	of 275869

Mas, I requested you to put arguments in the posts where you insult Doug. You didn't. So now you're off. A month. One line background: I originally requested both you and Doug not to insult each other again without hard explicit arguments because it lead to a heck of a lot OT. Regards, Rink Last warning: Message 23064192

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read

From: romus	12/5/2006 3:37:37 PM
	of 275869

Barcelona freq models 1.9GHz<=>2.5GHz, DDR2-800 Opt1000 / DDR2-667 Opt2000/8000, compiled by HKEPC hardware. hkepc.com Sorry if already posted.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: combjelly who wrote (219016)	12/5/2006 3:38:26 PM
From: smooth2o	of 275869

re: But that isn't the only issue at play. At 14W, a Conroe processor is likely going to need active cooling at idle. A 65nm AMD processor won't. Boy, talk about the dumbest post of the day... Maybe you haven't noticed, but all notebooks (and other systems) run power loads at some time (sure you have). That requires cooling, so it's not a matter of just sitting there at 14W. Not to mention, CMW consumes less power than AMD at load. Not to mention that farms of new CMW systems are whisper quiet. Talk about reaching for an advantage... Sheesh! Smooth

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (2)

To: romus who wrote (219057)	12/5/2006 3:40:26 PM
From: dougSF30	of 275869

OMG, if that is true, AMD is done like dinner. Expectations were for 2.7-2.9GHz for top (120W) bins of Barcelona. 2.4-2.5GHz ain't gonna cut it.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (219034)	12/5/2006 3:42:39 PM
From: rzborusa	of 275869

Doug, As an Intel long wouldn't you be happy if it had taken AMD longer to bring up 65nm? Don't answer yet. I will vote against the 20 speedlimit out of a sense of fairness to you. It seems a word count would be more appropriate but way too difficult. I don't begrudge you, and am glad you keep your posts short and to the point, hence numerous. As I understand it, the moderator is not compelled to act. Many including you have been quick to request moderation. It is good to disagree. We get the thread we deserve.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (219032)	12/5/2006 3:43:02 PM
From: smooth2o	of 275869

You have to wait for 20 posts :) Smooth

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)