SI
SI
discoversearch

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 StocksAdvanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: FJB who wrote (219045)12/5/2006 3:15:32 PM
From: dougSF30
of 275869
 
Happy to please. You haven't seen any AMD 65nm die photos anywhere have you, by any chance?

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: dougSF30 who wrote (219047)12/5/2006 3:17:24 PM
From: FJB
of 275869
 
If I did, I would have linked them already. You aren't in such a state of denial that you don't think AMD is shipping 65nm part, are you? That would be crazy.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: dougSF30 who wrote (219042)12/5/2006 3:18:19 PM
From: jspeed
of 275869
 
No Doug, they are legit. In fact, you have no business creating your half-baked theories when a company like Semiconductor Insights puts their seal of approval on AMD's process.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: jspeed who wrote (219049)12/5/2006 3:21:37 PM
From: mas_
of 275869
 
Are his theories ever anything else ? ;-)

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: jspeed who wrote (219049)12/5/2006 3:23:36 PM
From: dougSF30
of 275869
 
jspeed, please spell out what "theories" you consider to be "half-baked" and why.

What is the die size for AMD's 65nm Brisbane parts? Are you saying it is not ~125mm^2, as the Inq claims?

If it were 125mm^2, what does that tell you, given that the 90nm size is 183mm^2.

What does it tell you that AMD provided no samples to reviewers, no die size information, and no die photos to the public?

You are just hurling insults, here. How about some answers besides, "I trust that a company that AMD hired said their process was good."

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


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 KeepReplyMark 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 KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: dougSF3012/5/2006 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 KeepReplyMark 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 KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead 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 KeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10