Quote Originally Posted by JumpingJack View Post
KTE,

The ULK will have a positive power impact, but dynamic not leakage. Leakage in the backend is not the dominating power loss mechansims, gate leakage has surpassed subthreshold leakage at 65 nm.

On the Idsat, it will be interesting if AMD can implement the (110) technology since that will be a big boost in Pmos, they have not reported Pmos data that I am aware, though I have only 'lazily' looke dor it.

Their NMOS Idsat is not that impressive, they are reporting 1364 at 200 is about 8% above where they reported the initial 65 nm at the same subthreshold and this does not account for gate leakage which is only present during the on state. So, unless PMOS comes in very strong, then 8-10% more clock at the same thermals, or some power savings at the same clock.

In short, I don't really see AMD's 45 nm really coming very close to Intels unless two things happen... they bring in HK/MG and come out with a very strong PMOS (which could happen if they do 110)
Yeah Jack, the (110) PMOS is to be implmented at a later node because of its complexity but the ability has already been proven without even the need of HK/MG, some very good SOI performance has already been obtained as noted above. HK/MG will only add more benefits such as PMOS Idsat increase, after the 45nm fabrication process is matured, the integration will begin. I don't think we can judge PMOS performance based on NMOS performance data since Intels 45nm NMOS Idsat boost was only ~12% but PMOS was a huge ~50%. However the CMOS performance IIRC is not like Intels HKMG 45nm and without HKMG. The last research studies and papers on IBM/AMD SOI 45nm CMOS without HKMG is what I believe Shanghai will be based on, maybe a little tuned but not much more: PMOS 840μA/μm DC and NMOS 1240μA/μm DC at Vdd=1.0, Ioff=NA: http://hasan.nayfeh.googlepages.com/...ology_2006.pdf