| To: combjelly who wrote (219016) | 12/5/2006 3:38:26 PM | | From: smooth2o | | | | 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 |
| | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: romus who wrote (219057) | 12/5/2006 3:40:26 PM | | From: dougSF30 | | | | 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. |
| | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: dougSF30 who wrote (219034) | 12/5/2006 3:42:39 PM | | From: rzborusa | | | | 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. |
| | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: dougSF30 who wrote (219051) | 12/5/2006 3:43:22 PM | | From: jspeed | | | | Wow, how stubborn.
They've had the product in their hands and have put it through a thorough analysis. This is what they do and they are well known for it.
I guess I was a little too subtle for you earlier so let me say it directly. AMD did this to head off rumor and heresay criticism such as you are spinning out here. |
| | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: jspeed who wrote (219062) | 12/5/2006 3:46:52 PM | | From: dougSF30 | | | | | That makes no sense. There are plenty of independent experts who could offer analysis given a die photo, die size information, and samples to attempt to measure power and o/c-ability. Why not provide it like they have in the past? |
| | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: smooth2o who wrote (219061) | 12/5/2006 3:47:24 PM | | From: Rink | | | | Ali, TGP, Your discussion turned into pure OT. So please discontinue the discussion.
Smooth, 20 posts OT before I can call to stop?! You're crazy ;).
Regards,
Rink |
| | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | KeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: dougSF30 who wrote (219053) | 12/5/2006 3:49:04 PM | | From: mas_ | | | | | I didn't really expect anything more than an announcement. Parts should start flooding us soon so when they are actually tested we can examine your theory that 65nm is broken in more detail ;-). Here's a WAG from me, they will overclock slighty more than 90nm parts, say 3.2-3.3 GHz. I also like the technical fact that SiGe is in the first stepping. |
| | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
