If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
65nm news from Intel
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com...
http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_new...toryID=6098883 Yousuf Khan official press release, http://crew.tweakers.net/Wouter/Press65nm804a.pdf more publicity, http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1640647,00.asp http://news.com.com/Intel+to+throttl...l?tag=nefd.top http://cbs.marke****ch.com/news/stor...-1943CB16A394% Looks damn good on paper. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com... http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_new...toryID=6098883 Yousuf Khan I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+ is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind" Intel's Prescott. Carlo |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It looks like AMD is progressing nicely with .09
This website shows the Athlon 64 4000+ and 3800+ as well as the FX-55 as scheduled for release in October. http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/ Mobile Athlon 64 chips for thin and light notebooks are being made now on .09 Carlo Razzeto wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_new...toryID=6098883 Yousuf Khan I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+ is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind" Intel's Prescott. Carlo |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Carlo Razzeto wrote:
I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+ is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind" Intel's Prescott. Shhh! Intel needs a little bit of a pick-me-up. Let it enjoy its usual fawning coverage, like from yesteryear. :-) Yousuf Khan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:54:23 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_new...toryID=6098883 I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+ is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind" Intel's Prescott. The important difference is that Athlon64 3000+ costs AMD more to build than Intel's Prescott 3.0GHz chips, yet sells for less. New process generation is equally one part technology, one part financial these days (case-in-point, Intel is very aggressively moving the low-end Celeron to the newest manufacturing product rather than just focusing on high-end chips first). ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote: It looks like AMD is progressing nicely with .09 This website shows the Athlon 64 4000+ and 3800+ The 3800+ on .09 that is. The 3800+ on .13 was released earlier. as well as the FX-55 as scheduled for release in October. http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/ Mobile Athlon 64 chips for thin and light notebooks are being made now on .09 Carlo Razzeto wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_new...toryID=6098883 Yousuf Khan I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+ is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind" Intel's Prescott. Carlo |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Hill" wrote in message
... On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:54:23 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto" wrote: The important difference is that Athlon64 3000+ costs AMD more to build than Intel's Prescott 3.0GHz chips, yet sells for less. New process generation is equally one part technology, one part financial these days (case-in-point, Intel is very aggressively moving the low-end Celeron to the newest manufacturing product rather than just focusing on high-end chips first). ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca This I realize and I'm not trying to take that away... I'm just saying that if I didn't know any better and I were to read the article I might tend to automatically assume that a .13 chip is worse than a .09 chip etc.... When the truth is the manufacturing process is not really going to have a huge impact in performance (unless of course it means they can get more MHz out of it). Carlo |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:55:47 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
wrote: "Tony Hill" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:54:23 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto" wrote: The important difference is that Athlon64 3000+ costs AMD more to build than Intel's Prescott 3.0GHz chips, yet sells for less. New process generation is equally one part technology, one part financial these days (case-in-point, Intel is very aggressively moving the low-end Celeron to the newest manufacturing product rather than just focusing on high-end chips first). This I realize and I'm not trying to take that away... I'm just saying that if I didn't know any better and I were to read the article I might tend to automatically assume that a .13 chip is worse than a .09 chip etc.... When the truth is the manufacturing process is not really going to have a huge impact in performance (unless of course it means they can get more MHz out of it). Well, until very recently a new manufacturing processes DID mean that they could get more MHz out of it, usually quite a bit more MHz. On the old 180nm process the P4 struggled to reach 2.0GHz, while on the 130nm process Intel has managed to push the chip up to 3.4GHz. Previously the gains were even larger, with the 250nm PIII topping out at 600MHz and the 180nm eventually managing 1.13GHz. However the new 90nm fab process has maybe thrown this automatic assumption of much higher clock speeds into question, at least for the time being. Intel's still having trouble getting the "Prescott" P4 up to 3.6GHz and have pushed back the release date of their 3.8 and 4.0GHz P4 chips multiple times. This might just be a specific situation, as the Prescott is a VERY different chip from the Northwood, beyond simply the process shrink, however IBM doesn't seem to be too much better with their PowerPC chips. The PPC 970 (130nm) made it to 2.0GHz and might have had some headroom left, while currently IBM is struggling to get decent production on the 2.5GHz PPC 970FX (90nm). So... err.. what was the point I was trying to get at here again?! Ohh yeah, I think I'm basically agreeing with you : ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
This is just extra publicity for what has already been
known for months, ie the drive to 65nm is on a fast pace, things are looking good, much more straining of silicon, better internal power management, etc. The really exciting transistor designs will happen at 45nm, using the high-k interconnects. Though that's still three years away. And there is interesting research going on at 15nm, for the next decade. What's not known is exactly how Intel is going to design the silicon. How are the multiple cores going to work, especially with the one bus? Even more significantly, how are applications going to benefit from the 2+ cores; are they going to have to explicitly code multiple-threading to benefit, which afterall ain't easy to pull off, or will the feeding of the multiple cores be handled effectively by the compilers, or may be even the OS? I see that Intel has released a thread checking tool, hopefully MS incorporates something like it in their next Studio. So far, looks like the new upcoming multi-core chip designs will depend heavily on how applications are developed, more so than ever before. We already saw some of this with the branch-predictors, the results weren't impressive at all. If the thread related logic issues can't somehow be handled at the tool, OS, compiler, or chip level, then it's going to be a long day reaping the full potential of 2+ cores. 2+ cores may end up like the 386, full of potential but not enough software support. "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_new...toryID=6098883 Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell | LuvrSmel | Overclocking | 1 | January 10th 05 04:23 PM |
Intel chipsets are the most stable? | Grumble | Homebuilt PC's | 101 | October 26th 04 02:53 AM |
Real World Comparisons: AMD 3200 -vs- Intel 3.2. Your thoughts, experiences.... | Ted Grevers | General | 33 | February 6th 04 03:34 PM |
Intel & 65nm | Yousuf Khan | General | 0 | November 25th 03 02:18 AM |
Intel Updates Plans Again: Adds Pentium 4 EE at 3.40GHz and Pentium 4 at 3.40GHz | lyon_wonder | General | 2 | November 11th 03 12:17 AM |