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.
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.
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?
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.
Re: OMG, if that is true, AMD is done like dinner.
On the other hand this would put AMD's simulated benchmarks in a somewhat more positive light if they were simulations at 2.5GHz instead of 2.9GHz. A 2.9GHz Barcelona barely outperforming a 2.67GHz Clovertown in the online transaction benchmark would look really poor, where a 2.5GHz Barcelona at least indicates a slight clock-for-clock performance edge over Clovertown/Kentsfield.