90nm Bartons and A64 delays ?

Looks like AMD is conceding the demand is too low at the moment for the A64:
http://www.overclockers.com/articles819/

rms

Ed wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:32 GMT, "Roger Squires"
wrote:

Looks like AMD is conceding the demand is too low at the moment for
the A64: http://www.overclockers.com/articles819/

rms


It sure would be nice to see AMD release a Socket-A 3800+ or 4000+
(Nf2 400 FSB compatible) CPU next year.

Indeed, a die shrink on the Barton core would be sweet - I wonder what the
maximum clock would be. Aren't they using FDSOI on the 90nm process too?
Should help with the cooling... even I might be able to get one below 50!
:-P

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

dA mAn wrote:

wow, if that really happens i fink AMD did a fecking miracle job when they
were designing the K7 athlon. Its been around since 98?

I can see the 90nm xp's to be the new duron line when the athlon 64's come
out. If the Athlon 64 offers better performance than the p4's I can't see
why they wouldn't be immediatly popular?

Key word is if. They have to be able to beat the P4 running 32 bit apps to
be interesting to mainstream buyers until 64 bit OS's and apps are also
mainstream. I'm not surprised to see them do a shrink on the XP and try to
get back in the game. Actually glad to see it and hope the 64 bit apps/OS's
get sorted out before they try to "flood the market" with 64 bit chips. To
put a bunch out before the software is ready would be a bad move.

--

Stacey

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

Separating himself from Baghdad Bob, "Roger Squires"
whined:

Looks like AMD is conceding the demand is too low at the moment for the
A64: http://www.overclockers.com/articles819/


I disagree with the speculation that there is some 'problem'
with the Hammer line.

AMD finally has a CPU that people are willing and eager to
pay huge prices for.

They NEED to keep the prices on it high for as long as possible.



Love to hear what people would say if Intel was doing things to keep it's
chip prices as high as possible for as long as possible. Actually I think I
have heard what people say. Nevermind....
--

Stacey

If the K7 is a miracle, then what would you call the Intel P6,
introduced in the Pentium Pro in November 1995, and as the Pentium III,
still in production? Seven years and still relevant.

dA mAn wrote:
wow, if that really happens i fink AMD did a fecking miracle job when they
were designing the K7 athlon. Its been around since 98?

I can see the 90nm xp's to be the new duron line when the athlon 64's come
out. If the Athlon 64 offers better performance than the p4's I can't see
why they wouldn't be immediatly popular? Surely they wouldn't be more
expensive than newly released p4's? £300+!!!!!

Dan

dan
"Roger Squires" wrote in message
...

Looks like AMD is conceding the demand is too low at the moment for the

A64:

http://www.overclockers.com/articles819/

rms

Stacey wrote in message ...
Love to hear what people would say if Intel was doing things to keep it's
chip prices as high as possible for as long as possible. Actually I think I
have heard what people say. Nevermind....

I don't think anyone is worried that Intel isn't capable of keeping
prices high themselves. :-)

Yousuf Khan

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:32 GMT, "Roger Squires"
wrote:
Looks like AMD is conceding the demand is too low at the moment for the A64:
http://www.overclockers.com/articles819/

Haha, I like how the Overclockers website is claiming that this is not
only news, but somehow a HUGE story! What a joke!

This has been on AMD's roadmap for quite some time now, it was hardly
a secret to anyone, and definitely not "news". Geez, after reading a
few of the articles on the website, it is quite apparent that these
people are completely clueless when it comes to the workings of
processor manufacturing!

Here's a hint for any overclockers.com authors that might read this:

AMD produced K6 chips on a 180nm fab process after the Athlon came out
Intel produces PIII chips on a 130nm fab process after the P4
AMD will produce AthlonXP chips on a 90nm fab processor after the
Athlon64 comes out. Nothing new here, no surprises.

---------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:28:29 +0100, "dA mAn" wrote:
wow, if that really happens i fink AMD did a fecking miracle job when they
were designing the K7 athlon. Its been around since 98?

First chips shipped in mid-'99. 5+ years is a decent lifespan for a
CPU, but nothing extraordinary. Intel's P6 core lasted for a good 7
years of production (first introduced in the PentiumPro in 1995, last
produced as Celeron chips in 2002 and maybe even into the start of
2003). Before that the Pentium core lasted about 6 years (1993
through to early 1999), though the last year was almost entirely as a
mobile processor.

I can see the 90nm xp's to be the new duron line when the athlon 64's come
out. If the Athlon 64 offers better performance than the p4's I can't see
why they wouldn't be immediatly popular? Surely they wouldn't be more
expensive than newly released p4's? £300+!!!!!

Don't hold your breath on the Athlon64 being cheap. It will probably
be slightly cheaper than a comparable P4, but motherboards will be
more expensive, so system cost will probably be pretty similar or
possibly even in the P4's favor.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the AthlonXP replacing
the Duron, though that's already happened at least 6 months ago, at
least in North America and western Europe. The Duron is essentially
dead in these markets, and has been for some time. It apparently
recently been revived for some developing markets (timed rather
closely to AMD's announcement that they will actively pursue the
Chinese market), but for most of the world, the AthlonXP is already
the low-cost chip in AMD's line-up. Unfortunately for AMD, until
quite recently it was also their ONLY chip, which is part of the
reason why AMD has bled a bit of red ink for the past little while.

---------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:55:12 -0400, Stacey wrote:
Never anonymous Bud wrote:
I disagree with the speculation that there is some 'problem'
with the Hammer line.

AMD finally has a CPU that people are willing and eager to
pay huge prices for.

They NEED to keep the prices on it high for as long as possible.

Love to hear what people would say if Intel was doing things to keep it's
chip prices as high as possible for as long as possible. Actually I think I
have heard what people say. Nevermind....

Err, what do you think the point of the Celeron line is? Or better
yet, why are all P4's not XeonDP chips? Hell, even speed grades are a
matter of keeping prices up on high-end chips while still being able
to sell low-cost chips. Intel does, AMD does, IBM does it, and so
does every other IC manufacturing company that is still in business.
Intel just manages to do it more successfully than AMD, which is why
Intel has made a boatload of money over the past 34 years while AMD
has essentially broken even over the same period.

---------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:07:49 -0500, lyon_wonder
wrote:
Sort of like AMD's 180nm K6-2+/III+ and Intel's 130nm Tualatin shrink
of the P3. Time well tell if the 90nm K7s will also officially be
AthlonXP desktop parts or, if AMD feels that high-end 90nm K7s would
be too close to the K8/Athlon 64 in performance, be mainly relegated
to mobile and entry-level systems, like the 2 previously mentioned
CPUs.

The AthlonXP chips will be desktop chips for at least a little while,
AMD needs them to compete with the Celeron and lower speed P4's if
nothing else. The Athlon64 will, at least initially, be a rather
pricy chip for AMD to produce, so they can't go around selling them
for $50/chip, and that is all that OEMs are willing to pay for a lot
of processors these days.

It is perhaps rather interesting that AMD is planning on bringing out
a mobile Athlon64 part at the exact same time as they release a
desktop part. This is something that neither AMD or Intel have ever
done before, and is perhaps telling of the direction that the industry
is headed. The Athlon core will probably hang around in mobile parts
for the exact same reason as why it will stick around for desktop
parts, but it doesn't seem like AMD will NEED it around as a mobile
part like they did with the K6-2+/K6-III+.

I also heard a rumor that there maybe 32bit-only CPUs available for
Socket 754-boards, which could be either K7/Athlon XP chips modified
to work on the K8 interface or crippled Athlon64 chips with 64bit
functionality disabled.

If such chips really do end up existing (I personally don't see it as
being a move that is at all useful/worthwhile), I'd be almost certain
that they will be Athlon64 chips with 64-bit functionality disabled.
Moving the AthlonXP to socket754 would require a fair bit of redesign
which makes even less sense than crippling Athlon64 chips.

My personal guess, Athlon64 chips will ship from some OEMs with 64-bit
support disabled in the bios by default. Put them in a board with a
BIOS that enables 64-bit operating and they'll work just fine. Of
course, I have been wrong in the past.

---------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca