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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article XQbZc.44$A63.6@trnddc09, Raymond wrote:
Oh, really? I did a quick Web search, but couldn't find when the comparable announcement was made for 90 nm. I vaguely remember mid-2001, which was a little matter of 3 years before 90 nm hit the streets in quantity. If you read exactly what Intel said after they achieved 90nm SRAM, they weren't anywhere as rosy as they are now with 65nm. I need to correct what I said - it was 2 years. March 2002. Actually, I remember them being every bit as optimistic. Anyway, such claims are worth almost as much as the hot air that carries them. I shall not be holding my breath for 65 nm; you are welcome to hold yours for it :-) I am holding my breath! :-) You have better lungs than I do :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
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 03:23 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 02:34 PM |
Intel & 65nm | Yousuf Khan | General | 0 | November 25th 03 01:18 AM |
Intel Updates Plans Again: Adds Pentium 4 EE at 3.40GHz and Pentium 4 at 3.40GHz | lyon_wonder | General | 2 | November 10th 03 11:17 PM |