AMD ON TRACK TO RECEIVE FIRST CHIPS FROM CHARTERED

luminaris

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
1,361
0
19,280
Looks like a good start from AMD. Let's hope they can ramp 65nm faster with the help of Chartered.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/14/77428_HNamdchartered_1.html

I still can't believe that the first chips will be based on 90nm and not 65nm. AMD is still far behind in the technology race against Intel.

The first AMD chips that come out of Chartered's factories will be made using a 90-nanometer manufacturing process, not a 65nm process as some reports have claimed, he said.

Over time, AMD and Chartered eventually plan to shift production to a 65nm process, he said.
 

9-inch

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2006
722
0
18,980
I still can't believe that the first chips will be based on 90nm and not 65nm. AMD is still far behind in the technology race against Intel.

What are you talking about??
AMD's process is A LOT better than Intels. Even you are witness that 90nm A64s perform better and consume less power than intel's 65nm offerings.

Let's just give them time for them to mature the process. I believe once we see 65nm offerings from AMD they will perform 40% better than current 90nm processors. I do believe intel is scared to sh!t about AMD's new and improved ssgoi process, that's why they're shouting out loud about their 45nm experiments.
 

gr8mikey

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2002
551
0
18,980
40% better transistor performance doesn't mean 40% higher benchmark scores.

If this were in fact true wouldnt AMD really be playing it up and backing it up with benchmarks?
 

9-inch

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2006
722
0
18,980
40% better transistor performance doesn't mean 40% higher benchmark scores.

40% better transistor performance DOES translate into BETTER overall processor performance. I just can't believe that you've made such a post. I would expect that coming from idiots like Ycon and compgeek, but not from a knowledgeable person like you.
 

gr8mikey

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2002
551
0
18,980
40% better transistor performance doesn't mean 40% higher benchmark scores.

40% better transistor performance DOES translate into BETTER overall processor performance. I just can't believe that you've made such a post. I would expect that coming from idiots like Ycon and compgeek, but not from a knowledgeable person like you.

Yes it will give overall better performance, but will not be a 1:1 linear relationship like you are implying.

I bet you wish AMD would give you something really concrete to work with. Until they do I might suggest that you quit grasping at straws.
 

ltcommander_data

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2004
997
0
18,980
I've responded to this many times, but the 40% figure is a marketing figure from AMD. What is important is to look at what they are comparing it relative to.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_13743~103048,00.html

The companies announced that they have successfully combined embedded Silicon Germanium (e-SiGe) with Dual Stress Liner (DSL) and Stress Memorization technology (SMT) on Silicon-On-Insulator (SOI) wafers, resulting in a 40 percent increase in transistor performance compared to similar chips produced without stress technology, while controlling power consumption and heat dissipation.
Funny thing is, both AMD and Intel currently produce chips using some form of straining and have for quite some time. What this means is that 40% figure is meaningless since we can't compare it to anything. This isn't even taking into account whether it's true or not and under what circumstances.
 

Ycon

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
1,359
0
19,280
Is there a bigger idiot than you?
However, practicing your theory, everything would scale linearly. WOHOO! My dual-core is gonna increase performance by 100%, im so happy!
Increased transistor performance leads to... higher clockspeed! Prescott anyone?

Well... what really matters is how are chips by Chartered going to help AMD? Maybe their process is as good as Intels? Who knows?
 

spud

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
3,406
0
20,780
I still can't believe that the first chips will be based on 90nm and not 65nm. AMD is still far behind in the technology race against Intel.

What are you talking about??
AMD's process is A LOT better than Intels. Even you are witness that 90nm A64s perform better and consume less power than intel's 65nm offerings.

Let's just give them time for them to mature the process. I believe once we see 65nm offerings from AMD they will perform 40% better than current 90nm processors. I do believe intel is scared to sh!t about AMD's new and improved ssgoi process, that's why they're shouting out loud about their 45nm experiments.

Interesting, care to back that up with some data ?

Word.
 

spud

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
3,406
0
20,780
40% better transistor performance doesn't mean 40% higher benchmark scores.

40% better transistor performance DOES translate into BETTER overall processor performance. I just can't believe that you've made such a post. I would expect that coming from idiots like Ycon and compgeek, but not from a knowledgeable person like you.

It's not linear scaleing so yes you are blowing it out of proportion.
 

rettihSlluB

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2005
296
0
18,780
I've responded to this many times, but the 40% figure is a marketing figure from AMD. What is important is to look at what they are comparing it relative to.
The same marketing figure intel used for their conroe processor being "40%" better than an Athlon 64?? 8)

I really don't think so. AMD is wiser than intel and I'm sure this 40% increase in transistor performance really translates in better performance since AMD and IBM were working jointly on this one (maybe not 40% overall performance, but closer to that figure).
 

akira982443

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2006
15
0
18,510
9-inch wrote.... Looks like a good start from AMD. Let's hope they can ramp 65nm faster with the help of Chartered.

Advice.... don't buy AMD proc anymore coz chartered sucks... know y i'm telling this.. coz i work there b4.... i'm AMD fan also but when i see this news..
i makes me sad...
 

Legenic

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2006
148
0
18,680
I still can't believe that the first chips will be based on 90nm and not 65nm. AMD is still far behind in the technology race against Intel.

What are you talking about??
AMD's process is A LOT better than Intels. Even you are witness that 90nm A64s perform better and consume less power than intel's 65nm offerings.

Let's just give them time for them to mature the process. I believe once we see 65nm offerings from AMD they will perform 40% better than current 90nm processors. I do believe intel is scared to sh!t about AMD's new and improved ssgoi process, that's why they're shouting out loud about their 45nm experiments.

intel comes out with data, you say it's bs and disregard it, "until you see real proof". AMD comes out with similar information, and you praise it as being fact despite there being no hard data to back it up.

40% better transistor performance won't mean 40% increase in performance. it means that with this process AMD will be able to reach higher clock speeds, upwards of (from what I've read, if I recall correctly) 3.4ghz or similar.

AMD's process performance isn't far and away better than intels. they may be able to create similar numbers in terms of power usage and temeratures, but that's very much because of the efficient architecture they're using. you can't compare say a p4 on 90nm to an A64 on 90nm and say AMD is kicking intels anus in process performance. the two architectures are vastly different. long pipelines and high clockspeed means high temperatures.

a plus side for intel on manufacturing is that they can produce chips at a much lower cost than AMD. this means that in any sort of pricing war, intel will have an advantage.

another point: there are TDP numbers floating around for the turion X2 processors that show them as 35w on AMD's 90nm process, which is great. but the numbers also list future 65nm turions as being in the same power envelope; 35w.

and people will see your thread if it's not all in capitals you know.
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810
When you put an HO cam into a standard-output 302, you must remember that the firing order will have to be changed to accomodate the new camshaft, as the HO uses the 351W firing order. Also, if you're staying with fuel injection, a swap to a Mustang DA1 speed density EECIV (actually the ECU from an 86 Mustang GT automatic would be best, but good luck finging one) and a set of orange-top 19lb injectors will be the miminum necessary to make the efi system operate correctly. I recommend going with the full HO conversion though, and swapping out the old E6 heads for the E7 castings and sourcing the upper intake and throttle body from an 87-92 Lincoln Mk 7 or 87-93 Mustang 5.0, which will net you another 25 hp. A decent exhaust system wil be necessary (no less than stock Mustang headers, h-pipe, and catback) to avoid choking your 5.0 HO motor.
 

theaxemaster

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2006
375
0
18,780
The same marketing figure intel used for their conroe processor being "40%" better than an Athlon 64?? 8)

Quoted for emphasis. Its all handwaving and marketing fluff until the processors are on the table so just chill. I'm not even interested in how AMD can improve the K8 (since that's all they've been doing for the last year+), I'm interested in what they've got next, although I'll admit I'm tempted by the 65nm AM2...

P.S. joefriday, are you sure you're in the right forum?
 

spud

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
3,406
0
20,780
I still can't believe that the first chips will be based on 90nm and not 65nm. AMD is still far behind in the technology race against Intel.

What are you talking about??
AMD's process is A LOT better than Intels. Even you are witness that 90nm A64s perform better and consume less power than intel's 65nm offerings.

Let's just give them time for them to mature the process. I believe once we see 65nm offerings from AMD they will perform 40% better than current 90nm processors. I do believe intel is scared to sh!t about AMD's new and improved ssgoi process, that's why they're shouting out loud about their 45nm experiments.

intel comes out with data, you say it's bs and disregard it, "until you see real proof". AMD comes out with similar information, and you praise it as being fact despite there being no hard data to back it up.

40% better transistor performance won't mean 40% increase in performance. it means that with this process AMD will be able to reach higher clock speeds, upwards of (from what I've read, if I recall correctly) 3.4ghz or similar.

AMD's process performance isn't far and away better than intels. they may be able to create similar numbers in terms of power usage and temeratures, but that's very much because of the efficient architecture they're using. you can't compare say a p4 on 90nm to an A64 on 90nm and say AMD is kicking intels anus in process performance. the two architectures are vastly different. long pipelines and high clockspeed means high temperatures.

a plus side for intel on manufacturing is that they can produce chips at a much lower cost than AMD. this means that in any sort of pricing war, intel will have an advantage.

another point: there are TDP numbers floating around for the turion X2 processors that show them as 35w on AMD's 90nm process, which is great. but the numbers also list future 65nm turions as being in the same power envelope; 35w.

and people will see your thread if it's not all in capitals you know.

Nice job.... here is the short and skinny of it.... 9-inch, MMM, and all others take this info to make their claim:

An Athlon running at 2.4 GHz runs cooler and out performs a 90 nm Intel processor running at 3.6 GHz. Thus, they conclude that AMD must have a better 90 nm process :) ....

The correct argment is to realize that

Performance (observed) = speed (GHz) x IRC (Instructions retired per clock)

Intel, by using netburst, focused on Speed. AMD, because they could not squeeze more from the process focused on IRC, hence, the reality is AMD has a better architecture with K8 but not necessarily a better process, even with their beloved SOI :)

The fact of the matter is if you take a 3.6 GHz P4 and underclock it to 2.4 GHz it will run at 20-30 Watts, while the Athlon at 2.4 GHz still dissipates 80-90 watts. You see this in the overclockability too...you also see their process short comings in the "Cold Bug". It is ludicrious the way thay make their arguments.

Word.
 

endyen

Splendid
The fact of the matter is if you take a 3.6 GHz P4 and underclock it to 2.4 GHz it will run at 20-30 Watts, while the Athlon at 2.4 GHz still dissipates 80-90 watts.
Not quite the Word I was looking for. The prescott 2.4 was only able to get down to ~70 watts because it used a 133 fsb.
Since watts is what generates the heat, and watts is mostly a measure of work, and losses, @ 2.4 ghz that Intel is very inefficient.
I doubt anyone here has a real grasp of Amd's process technology, but you have to admit that it's output has made Intel's best efforts, over the last 4 years look rather sad.
I'm pretty sure Amd has a better idea of what they are doing than we do.
 

luminaris

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
1,361
0
19,280
When you put an HO cam into a standard-output 302, you must remember that the firing order will have to be changed to accomodate the new camshaft, as the HO uses the 351W firing order. Also, if you're staying with fuel injection, a swap to a Mustang DA1 speed density EECIV (actually the ECU from an 86 Mustang GT automatic would be best, but good luck finging one) and a set of orange-top 19lb injectors will be the miminum necessary to make the efi system operate correctly. I recommend going with the full HO conversion though, and swapping out the old E6 heads for the E7 castings and sourcing the upper intake and throttle body from an 87-92 Lincoln Mk 7 or 87-93 Mustang 5.0, which will net you another 25 hp. A decent exhaust system wil be necessary (no less than stock Mustang headers, h-pipe, and catback) to avoid choking your 5.0 HO motor.

LOL

how about building me one of these motors and drop it in my Buick? Oh, it has to be transverse mounted to as, it's FWD. I wanna be able to smoke these little rice rockets running around. My H2 is pushing in the neighborhood of 430HP but it's still too heavy. :wink:
 

akira982443

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2006
15
0
18,510
JumpingJack wrote.. Actually, not a bad point....Chartered is a singapore company, I would not feel comfortable supporting them for various reasons. Why? Well, something similar to why I would not support Nike by buying their products.

trust me... i work there before... chartered really sucks... their yield sucks...
do u ever own the 1st generation colour phone from sony ericsson? the phone
got a lot of problem.. the chip inside was made by chartered.
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
I wonder what Keyboad_Man is doing. He is late with giving the best advice for 9-inch, that 9-inch should accept once and finally before he posts another garbage from the trash.
 

MrsD

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2006
480
0
18,780
They are behind and still can outperform. 70% of the market proves that.


Looks like a good start from AMD. Let's hope they can ramp 65nm faster with the help of Chartered.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/14/77428_HNamdchartered_1.html

I still can't believe that the first chips will be based on 90nm and not 65nm. AMD is still far behind in the technology race against Intel.

The first AMD chips that come out of Chartered's factories will be made using a 90-nanometer manufacturing process, not a 65nm process as some reports have claimed, he said.

Over time, AMD and Chartered eventually plan to shift production to a 65nm process, he said.
 

luminaris

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
1,361
0
19,280
They are behind and still can outperform. 70% of the market proves that.


Looks like a good start from AMD. Let's hope they can ramp 65nm faster with the help of Chartered.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/14/77428_HNamdchartered_1.html

I still can't believe that the first chips will be based on 90nm and not 65nm. AMD is still far behind in the technology race against Intel.

The first AMD chips that come out of Chartered's factories will be made using a 90-nanometer manufacturing process, not a 65nm process as some reports have claimed, he said.

Over time, AMD and Chartered eventually plan to shift production to a 65nm process, he said.

I agree with you from a performance standpoint. My point is, AMD is still using 90nm technology and Intel has been using 65. AMD is behind in that aspect.
 

luminaris

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
1,361
0
19,280
JumpingJack wrote.. Actually, not a bad point....Chartered is a singapore company, I would not feel comfortable supporting them for various reasons. Why? Well, something similar to why I would not support Nike by buying their products.

trust me... i work there before... chartered really sucks... their yield sucks...
do u ever own the 1st generation colour phone from sony ericsson? the phone
got a lot of problem.. the chip inside was made by chartered.

Xbox 360 also uses chartered chips :) .... hmmmm heat problems.... keep them well ventilated and you should have not problems.... also recall the initial press release from MS, beside other HW shortages, the CPU yields were lower than had been hoped for.... hmmmmm. :)

Heat problems???? Oh Geez, so that means we could potentially see 'heat' problems kind of like what Intels experience somewhat now?