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.
EDIT: Endyen challenged me on the numbers above, and so I need to disclaim 20-30 watts is a rough guess, I do not have data to support that, my point was to emphasize that it would be very low. EDIT2: Wow, I was way off...I just underclocked my 3.6 GHz prescott (idles at 47 deg C, load is 56 de C), to 2.8 GHz and tweaked down the Vcore, based on Power=CV^2*F, I would estimate roughly 65 watts of TDP, and a temperature (heat dissipation) would put my temperature at ambient at about 38 deg C, I am measuring 41 Deg C. So a 2.4 GHz would do something along the order of 50-60 Watts. Thanks Endyen for ensuring accuracy.
Exactly! It is good to see an excellent post that brings good information to the forums instead of half truths.