Printable View
I can't believe i'm seeing this :),pro-AMD info coming from JJ from thg :eek: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Brent likes to put P4 to only 10% ipc slower than K8 just to ease the pain from the days of AMD :slapass: intel :p: .Hopefully those days are ahead of us again as it means competition is continuing to bring the best CPUs be it intc or amd :thumbsup:
Easy there tiger. I'm not trying to crash your world down around you. What i'm suggesting is that there could very well be alot more room at the top than on the prior process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
Don't get your panties in a bunch.
Really ? What are does samples ? SRAM or CPUs ? Are they working ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
It doesn't matter that Intel is well underway with building 2 45nm FABs from the ground up and moving one from 65 to 45nm or that they tapped out Penryn months ago , does it ?
Interesting display of logic from you nonetheless.North Korea detonated a pseudonuke ,therefore they have basically neutralised any advantage the US may have had in that area.
Are you able to see the monumental stupidity behind such a claim ? :stick:
Another brain fart from you.The worlds largest R&D company is ...ummhh...only that because it sucks badly at one thing : manufacturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
They are extraordinary in theory , too bad practice says otherwise.
Intel had better process characteristics with cheaper and simpler process than AMD&IBM.What does that say about the "prowess" of IBM ?
Secondly , if rumours turn out to be true ( that Power will be outsourced to Taiwan ) it means IBM's board won't renew the deal with AMD ( which they have to do by sept 30 this year IIRC ) => IBM will say goodbye to advanced process technology.Why ? Because the game is simply too expensive to play anymore.TI has already said bye bye to digital logic process advances and laif off its R&D staff.
And somehow AMD manages to mitigate all that..Have you considered that AMD might be experiencing all the above with 65nm as we speak , not to mention 45nm ? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Really ? Not even Conroe manages 1-1.2 except on few codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
P4 was around 0.3-0.7 and K8 0.5-0.9 at least for SPEC IIRC.
what are does samples? Sorry you've lost me. I'm talking CPU's at 45nm. Ofcourse they work, what do you think, they've produced non-working samples to sit and look at?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
C'mon, I already agreed I went a little far with the neutralised statement. Now you wanna go to the other end of the spectrum and insist it's gonna give INTEL some huge advantage.Quote:
It doesn't matter that Intel is well underway with building 2 45nm FABs from the ground up and moving one from 65 to 45nm or that they tapped out Penryn months ago , does it ?
In short, your right with your sarcasm. It virtually doesn't matter that INTEL is underway with 45nm fabs. INTEL needs to be on 45nm process and looking at 25nm cause if they keep on neglecting the FSB issue they have 45nm ain't gonna be enough for them to surpass AMD in the near future, nevermind keep up with them.
Yes, I can see you are monumentally stupid for making such a ret**ded comparison.Quote:
Interesting display of logic from you nonetheless.North Korea detonated a pseudonuke ,therefore they have basically neutralised any advantage the US may have had in that area.
Are you able to see the monumental stupidity behind such a claim ? :stick:
If not mistaken IBM were the first cpu manufacturer in existence. As a result they're the oldest and longest serving cpu manufacturers of all-time. They've pioneered most of the technology we have today. They've probably created more cpu's than AMD & INTEL combined.Quote:
Another brain fart from you.The worlds largest R&D company is ...ummhh...only that because it sucks badly at one thing : manufacturing.
They are extraordinary in theory , too bad practice says otherwise.
I'm sure they must be doin' something right.
HmmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
A. I didn't say integrated circuit.
B. 1958-59? Try 1880
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/hi...ory_intro.html
That happens very often , but what does a smartass like you really knows ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
You don't even know the f***ing codename for a 45nm AMD core and you tell me that it has taped out ?
And does it not ? Converting a FAB to 45nm while building 2 others while your competitor is 3 quarters away from reaching the 90nm to 65nm transition isn't a huge advantage ?Quote:
C'mon, I already agreed I went a little far with the neutralised statement. Now you wanna go to the other end of the spectrum and insist it's gonna give INTEL some huge advantage.
By the time AMD reaches the crossover between 90nm and 65nm Intel starts 45nm production.
That was also said at 130nm.Now we're at 65nm and Conroe stomps the IMC K8 all over.In short you have no clue on how performance can be achieved.Quote:
In short, your right with your sarcasm. It virtually doesn't matter that INTEL is underway with 45nm fabs. INTEL needs to be on 45nm process and looking at 25nm cause if they keep on neglecting the FSB issue they have 45nm ain't gonna be enough for them to surpass AMD in the near future, nevermind keep up with them.
Too bad you're monumentally stupid to see it applies perfectly to your claims.Quote:
Yes, I can see you are monumentally stupid for making such a ret**ded comparison.
That's hilarious but looking at your past performance it was kinda expected.Quote:
If not mistaken IBM were the first cpu manufacturer in existence. As a result they're the oldest and longest serving cpu manufacturers of all-time. They've pioneered most of the technology we have today. They've probably created more cpu's than AMD & INTEL combined.
I'm sure they must be doin' something right.
If you think being the oldest and longest player with a presence in "all the markets" is a sign of permanence then perhaps you should consider where
IBM is today in PCs, disk drives, DRAM, printers, networking gear , etc.
Do you know what's next ?
Let me offer you a hint :linkQuote:
"SANTA CLARA, Calif. — The semiconductor industry is projected to experience moderate growth in the near term — with only three IC-manufacturing business models evolving over time, warned Wim Roelandts, president, chairman and chief executive of Xilinx Inc."
"Meanwhile, during the interview, the executive also predicted that the IC industry would see only three chip-manufacturing business models in the future: Intel, memory and fabless/foundry.
Intel Corp., of course, will continue to build its own fabs and develop processes that are tuned for its processor lines. The memory makers will continue to build plants, although many are turning to partners to share the risks and costs.
Needless to say, the fabless/foundry model has been a smashing success, he said. Xilinx and a plethora of other fabless chip makers have prospered during the revolution.
What could get squeezed in the middle is the traditional fab or integrated design manufacturing (IDM) model. Over the years, this has been evident following the IDMs' shift towards the ''fab lite'' model.
But IEMs are under pressure to reduce their fab costs, forcing some to move what Gartner Inc. call a ''process lite'' model. Texas Instruments Inc. last week said that it will cease development of its internal logic process R&D at the 45-nm and will more closely with foundries."
How does this relate to IBM ? Simple : the performance of the logic manufacturing group inside IBM has been poor financially wise and costs are at an all time high. And beancounters see everything with cost-coloured glasses...
AMD 10-Q filling.Quote:
"Total non-cancelable purchase commitments as of October 1, 2006, were $1.3 billion for periods through 2020. These purchase commitments included $698 million related to contractual obligations of Fab 30 and Fab 36 to purchase silicon-on-insulator wafers and purchases of energy and gas and up to $171 million representing future payments to IBM pursuant to our joint development agreement. As IBM’s services are being performed ratably over the life of the agreement, we expense the payments as incurred. In August 2005, we amended this agreement, and among other things, extended its termination date through December 2011. However, capital purchases by IBM necessary for the continued development of process development projects past December 31, 2008 are conditioned upon the approval of IBM’s board of directors. If such approval is not received by September 30, 2007, either party has the right to terminate the agreement effective December 31, 2008 without liability.
Why are rumours appearing about IBM outsourcing Power production to Taiwanese foundries ? Why is Power 7 build socket compatible with Opteron ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
nup. a CPU and an intergrated circuirt can be 2 totally different things :P
for example, a simple FET driver is an intergrated circuirt, doesn't mean it's a CPU, obviously
CPU's date back to god knows when, but Intel made the first microprocessor , the type of CPU we recognise today.
i believe that there was a post about amd has already made a 45nm cpu , intels lead on die size shrink , is shrinkingQuote:
And does it not ? Converting a FAB to 45nm while building 2 others while your competitor is 3 quarters away from reaching the 90nm to 65nm transition isn't a huge advantage ?
By the time AMD reaches the crossover between 90nm and 65nm Intel starts 45nm production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Where are you seeing these rumors? I've seen this one, but that is about outsourcing Power server assembly, not CPUs. To my knowledge the company that would likely receive their business, Winstron, isn't even a foundry.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
The article also includes this quote:
"Once RISC (reduced instruction set computer) sever OEM orders are released to Taiwan manufacturers, industry players noted that OEM orders for Itanium 2 servers from Hewlett Packard (HP), ultra SPARC IV servers from Sun Microsystems and Fujitsu-Siemens to Taiwan makers would follow in the future."
I think we are now several degrees removed from K8L.
oook , what facts ?Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
amd isn't going to use high k on it's 45nm cpu's , instead it has changed it's way of manufacturing the cpu
so you think that amd still has to incorperate high k into it's cpu ?
In fact, it is unlikely that IBM's solution, the one used by AMD, will see any contribution from high-k or metal gates at the initial 45 nm node. Later 45 nm parts might, as will the 32 nm node.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0206002327.htm
Grose inferred in a brief interview that the initial 45nm process will be similar to the last modifications expected on its 65nm node, set for the second quarter of 2008. However, he was quoted as saying that such new materials could possibly be introduced in late 45nm renditions or not until the 32nm node, not expected until the second half of 2009 at the earliest, according to current speculation.
http://www.fabtech.org/content/view/2440/2/
The new chief of manufacturing at Advanced Micro Devices said the company has already made first test chips using 45nm process technology, however, he said the new fabrication process still does not employ high-k dielectrics and similar innovations that IBM and AMD developed collaboratively. The new technologies, however, may still be a focus for AMD, the new production chief joined AMD from IBM.
Douglas Grose, who has been appointed to the role of senior vice president of technology development, manufacturing and supply chain at AMD, said that AMD’s Dresden, Germany manufacturing facility has been producing test chips using 45nm for some time now and the company has a very strong focus on rapid development of the new fabrication technology.
Mr. Grose indicated that the 65nm process technology – which went commercial in early December, 2006 – is already fully developed and ready to ramp up. The main target for AMD today is 45nm fabrication process.
It is still under review what kind of 45nm process technology AMD will use along with its chips. On the one hand, AMD might develop a version of its silicon-on-insulator (SOI) fabrication process to ramp up 45nm chips quickly. On the other hand, AMD and IBM already announced that they “expected” to make commercial products using technology that features immersion lithography and ultra-low-K interconnect dielectrics in 2008. In addition, AMD and IBM developed 45nm process technology with high-K dielectrics.
“It really is going to depend on what makes most sense and on our product roadmap. It could be late in the 45nm timeframe or the 32nm node application,” Mr. Grose said
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...205223539.html
so , just what are the facts ?
No it hasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
They produced 45nm test chips , that is silicon-functional circuits.
In other words SRAM test vehicles which are mostly made of SRAM ( duh' ) and a little logic.
Even then, intel's lead is still shrinking. 9-12 months is still less than 18 months :)
More and more OT... Cant resist... =)
Whats all this about IBM suddenly being so big in chipmaking? Last time i heard (ok, its probably a year ago) IBM was rated #18, and Intel was and still is up there in the #1 spot way ahead of the rest. IBM remains a smaller maker and one of Intels big customers. If talking about CPUs only and not chips in general then its not exactly a secret that IBM lost the Macs to Intel. Well, IBM had some good times with Xbox360 and also Cell lately, so they have grown, but suddenly to the level of Intel?? No way...
:D Nice one. Too bad that your point wont go home where its needed most, there are some lost cases here.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Anyways, is it Intel or IBM who will make the K8L and will it be 45nm, with or without high K? I thought its AMD and 65nm, so what about saving some space in this thread for coming news and rumors about K8L? Maybe there will even be a benchie or 2, anything is better than "my dad makes smaller chips than your dad".
The K8 was over 1000mhz slower then the P4 and K8 would just blow it away. A FX-60 would just blow away the highest end dual core P4 back in the day even at 3.8ghz it couldn't even compare to the power of a FX60.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I agree with you.
XDD No, its cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
umm To say that Conroe stomps all over K8 is kinda of a misnomer, because at stock clocks AMD is neck and neck with Intel, while still being much cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Also in the 4+P computer world Intel is still a joke
Sorry but Intel only used BULK silicon witch is only a Si process that consists of with SS, Cu, and CMOS with Ge processing and thats really sucky because its done so quickly making a cheaper yet more fragile construction, no Dual Liners On any of the long term SS processing like AMD does why there cpus take 2 times longer to build. Makes them stronger and gives a 40% transister leakage reduction on top of the transistors being able to last longer under great stresses. On the other side, Intel's some 40 years established bulk silicon production process is leaky enough to make Intel's standard SiO2 process ridiculous compared with AMD's SOI standards even with high K metal gates.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
AMD uses Ge-SSOI on low k in 65nm. Later to do SGOI high K metal gates on 45nm's. Same time IBM will. Both are used by IBM currently having the best FAB processing power known to man. Allowing AMD to be ahead of intel by a large margin in fab complexity. AMD is at SOI-3 wile Intel is just moving to SOI-2 copying off of AMD but just getting there at only 45nm when AMD has been useing this since the 90nm hit Rev F3 witch includes SOI-3 in 90nm and G1 65nm.
Also AMD's 90nm standards where far ahead of bulk silicon by a long shot. Even with intels 65nm lead currently EE vers of K8 can compete just as good as C2D can in price performance gaps. AMD's processes have gotten cheaper as well so they are selling CPU's at half the price with conroe only giving a average 10% performance advantage. AMD's prices just make it hard for intel to keep their price performance edge specially now that AMD has gone to 65nm. Intels SOI-2 can not even compare to Perfected 90nm SOI-2. They still have a lot to learn. Thats why Intel delayed 45nm until 2008. Fab process problems with the transission. Intel may have all the fabs and can manufacture things quicker then AMD. But AMD has the better technology by a long shot. They deal with more complex fab processing then Intel's bulk silicon. Intel doesn't have much experionce beyond that.
Die smirks do not make the fab process automaticly more advanced just because of their size. It also matters what type of fab processing is used. Just because Intel was at 65nm before AMD doesn't make them better. AMD used SOI-2 before Intel ever did and even then 65nm P4's leaked like there was no tomarrow. AMD was just way head of them in that area Specially fab processes.
i believe that if you actually look it up , you will find out that amd had made it's s-ram test 3 months after intel made it's test s-ram, no where in the article does it say that amd's test chip is a test s-ram chipQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
what amd has produced right now is a test chip to test it's circuts , it is no where near a tapeout yet
i copied this post from some one else because it says what i am trying to get thru to you
A test chip is a sufficent and necessary thing to have to develop a process. Once one is sucessfully produced in a fab, the time to the A0 samples of a lead vehicle is ~1 year. It takes that long to figure out how the patterning/substrates interact to get halfway decent models to enable the design of circuitry (RC delay comes to mind, as does resolving killer defect modes, transistor design.....) for tape in. There's really no way around that. You can have all the nifty circuit block diagrams you want. Until you see them in silcon (on a test chip) you can't be sure how they will actually perform.
son, the best thing for you to do is keep your money , i can tell that you will need it making bets like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Oh yes...in your alternate reality world maybe.Point me the AMD chip equivalent in performance to a E6600 and how it is "much cheaper".If you want we can also do a performance/w analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Put up or shut up.
In the 4+P there are 3 players :Quote:
Also in the 4+P computer world Intel is still a joke
-Sun Galaxy servers which scale up to 8P
-IBM x460 which scales up to 32P
-Unisys ES7000/one which scales up to 32P
You can guess who is the "joke" in the 4+P server space or maybe you won't , were it for you to have a clue you wouldn't have said such a stupidity.
And to put gasoline on fire , I challenge you to provide industry standard benchmark results so we can compare which is the bigger joke in the 8P space ( since the "non joke" can't scale higher )
8P's will only be out when K8L opterons come out in quad's. Intel can not touch AMD in the 4P and 8P world because they can not get past their FSB issues. 16-ways with 32 cores or even 8-ways with 16 cores on quad chips being 4 or 8 sockets. I'm sorry but it is humorous for you not to know this. Thats what direct connection 2 is their for.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Half the server space, half of the energy consumption, more performance with less blades. What do you think will happen then? BTW it does scale that high because of the new arc. This isn't K8, its a whole nother ball game boy. Talking like you know everything when apperently you don't Intel can not go past 2P's means limited to 8 cores. And 8 cores can not compare to 16 or 32 on one board.
the really funny thing is I don't think savantu realizes that Intel still is using only Prescotts and smithfields on their 4+P market and that he is saying that Prescott is better than K8 :cheer2: :bounces: :eleph: :wierd: :lol2: :rotf: :hitself: :rehab:Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
Ma hahahaha... I love coming here to see the comity in the forums every day. :lol: Specially on my days off. :rotf:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Blal bla bla....I don't know if I should feel sorry or laugh. :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
For 90nm
Vdd=1.0V
IBM/AMD
NMOS=0.96mA @ 100uA Ioff
PMOS=0.48mA @ 100uA Ioff
Intel
NMOS=1.15mA @ 100uA Ioff
PMOS=0.67mA @ 100uA Ioff
Intel advantage 20% for NMOS , 40% for PMOS.
For 65nm
Gate Length: 35nm, Vdd=1.0V
IBM/AMD*
NMOS=1.14mA @ 200uA Ioff
PMOS=0.7mA @ 200uA Ioff
Intel
NMOS=1.21mA @ 100uA Ioff
PMOS=0.71 @ 100uA Ioff
Extrapolating Intel to 200uA should give around NMOS/PMOS ~ 1310/760@200uA.
Intel advantage 15% NMOS , 8.5% PMOS.
Drain leakage current is the current that still flows when the transistor is fully turned off. A good process has both high drive and a high ratio of max on-current to off-current.
For the IBM/AMD the on/off ratio is:
1.14 mA/200 nA = 1140 uA/0.2 uA = 5700:1
For the Intel the on/off ratio is:
1.31 mA/200 nA = 1310uA/0.2 uA = 6550:1
*If someone has newer values pls post them.