Intel 45nm fab to open in 45 days

[StealthyFish]

AMD launched 65 nm in Dec 06, we saw actual chips in mid January, AMD finished their transistion of Fab 36 to all 65 nm by mid Q2 as I recall...

The report in inaccurate, AMD has a matrue 65 nm process and is in full production.

Jack

lol. I wouldn't go as far as to say AMD has a mature 65nm process... they still have some feats to conquer before you can say it's a mature process.

[nn_step]

lol. I wouldn't go as far as to say AMD has a mature 65nm process... they still have some feats to conquer before you can say it's a mature process.

considering that AMD has better 65nm yields than Intel does and that Intel claims they have a mature process.
There are only two logical conclusions:
1) AMD's 65nm process is mature and Intel is lying (marketing bull)
or
2) Neither AMD nor Intel's 65nm Process is mature and thus Intel's previous statements about their 65nm process is a lie (Lying to stock holders)

Now, which do you believe is more true

[red]

considering that AMD has better 65nm yields than Intel

never ceasing to amuse I see

[nn_step]

never ceasing to amuse I see

So what do you think being able to pull more working Dies off a wafer means?

[Vapor]

considering that AMD has better 65nm yields than Intel does :

Do you have proof that AMD has better yields at 65nm?

[savantu]

Do you have proof that AMD has better yields at 65nm?

No , he's talking out of his bottom as usually.

http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...14639&garpg=16

Slide 158 Defect density below 0.5cm^2. range



That's amazing , why would AMD disclose such a number that allows people to calculate their yields and die costs ?

What's more , the number is poor.A DD published as <0.5/cm2 can be anything less than 0.5 (to a certain limit obviusly). I do believe that the real number is probably less than that but still above the desired
0.22- 0.25D/cm2 , otherwise they would have said less than 0.3 or 0.4.

0.22-0.25D/cm^2 is considered world class.Intel constantly claims world class yields.
I have yet to see any indication that AMD has yields in the same region as Intel.

[Donnie27]

Do you have proof that AMD has better yields at 65nm?

What difference does it make? What if nn is right? The process for the K8 is mature but the processor is so yesterday. We know he's NOT talking about the current Process of K10 as being mature. Hell, even he's not that uninformed or blind. BUT what if the Process for K-10 is good and it is just a bad design? It can be a good process and a good design considering what its doing and showing right now.

Maybe for AMD it was not a bad process but poor choice of materials. Intel changed their formula and it worked, AMD's hasn't or not changed enough so far. Others who saw Intel's 45nm said it looked good. Anyone who's watched processors for the last 20 years know this will get better as follow-on steppings are tweaked or even reworked. Proof? Prescott plus its derivatives and TBread before that.

So maybe AMD and IBM should swallow their Pride and do what Intel is doing process wise, wouldn't be the first time.

[freeloader]

What difference does it make? What if nn is right? The process for the K8 is mature but the processor is so yesterday. We know he's NOT talking about the current Process of K10 as being mature. Hell, even he's not that uninformed or blind. BUT what if the Process for K-10 is good and it is just a bad design? It can be a good process and a good design considering what its doing and showing right now.

Maybe for AMD it was not a bad process but poor choice of materials. Intel changed their formula and it worked, AMD's hasn't or not changed enough so far. Others who saw Intel's 45nm said it looked good. Anyone who's watched processors for the last 20 years know this will get better as follow-on steppings are tweaked or even reworked. Proof? Prescott plus its derivatives and TBread before that.

So maybe AMD and IBM should swallow their Pride and do what Intel is doing process wise, wouldn't be the first time.

SOI has done nothing but hurt AMD in my own opinion. Several delays have caused them to miss delivery schedules. IF AMD is planning to use SOI for it's 45nm offerings, you can guarantee they'll be late by atleast two quarters.

[Donnie27]

SOI has done nothing but hurt AMD in my own opinion. Several delays have caused them to miss delivery schedules. IF AMD is planning to use SOI for it's 45nm offerings, you can guarantee they'll be late by atleast two quarters.

I think SOI helped AMD at first. As the process got smaller, it became a problem or at least that's the way it seemed to me. Intel saw their problem with the first Prescott and so they adjusted. I can be called Intel Fanboy til the cows come home but I'd hoped AMD would have gotten this process down pat by now. Or I could become an AMD Fanboy, then Pretend nothing is wrong and then comment on how much better it is than Intel.

Yepp , I just tossed it out there as a "what if". I'd really hoped whatever the problem is, AMD would have adjusted, corrected and or fixed by now. IMHO, AMD isn't that stubborn enough to keep trying something *seemingly this problematic. That's NOT a put down but a complement. But maybe its a good process but a Core Flaw that's the problem. Either way, Intel's 45nm is here and healthy.