AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

On Dec 21, 1:12*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I did not start this thread to discuss Intel's legal issues or business
practices, it was supposed to be about Intel's manufacturing technology,
but as usual it's gone off-kilter. So anyways, let me get my two cents
in about the original technological argument before we send it back to
legal and business issues.

As you'll recall, Intel announced its 45nm process with HKMG (High-K,
Metal Gates) to great fanfare. Various websites and forums proclaimed it
an amazing achievement. Well, the standard AMD 45nm SOI without HKMG
process seems to be superior to Intel's, as they are seeing lower power
and thermal requirements at the low-end, and higher overclockability at
the high-end. AMD will be adding HKMG later on in the 45nm process too,
but so far it looks unnecessary.

Intel has done many things over the years (keeping the controller off
the die, killing Alpha, sticking with a front-side bus, NetBurst,
hyperthreading, not using SOI) that have occasioned critical comment.
There is always information missing from those discussions, which is
that Intel almost always has good business reasons for doing what it
does. Its judgment may be faulty, but the key is that *you do not
have access to those reasons*.

The one piece of information that is available (stock price) indicates
that, whatever missteps Intel may have made, it's business judgment
(as judged by markets) has proven to be superior to AMD's. The
situation with AMD has become so dire that it almost seems pointless
to talk about it, although there may be someone out there with
business judgment much better than I possess to see how a viable
enterprise can be created in the future.

In any case, I suspect the decision against SOI was a matter of cost,
and I even vaguely remember some statements to that effect. I said
actually that I had cited stock prices as the one available indicator,
when margin (also publicly available) indicates that Intel manages to
have lower manufacturing costs. It all comes down to Intel being a
*business* and not a classroom project, a dorm room bull session, or a
soccer football team.

Your post seems to confirm what I think is your ongoing delusion about
Intel: that it is simply a better marketing machine than AMD. That it
*is* a better marketing machine is probably correct. That that's all
there is to Intel is nothing short of corporate defamation, if that's
what you indeed intend to imply. Intel's real advantage, widely
acknowledged in the industry, is that it knows how to manufacture high-
end microprocessors at the lowest possible cost.

SOI is one of many dead and rotting horses on csiphc. Let it be.
What's interesting about it is historical: it played a key role in the
triumph of x86. Isn't that enough?

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:12 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:

I did not start this thread to discuss Intel's legal issues or business
practices, it was supposed to be about Intel's manufacturing technology,
but as usual it's gone off-kilter. So anyways, let me get my two cents
in about the original technological argument before we send it back to
legal and business issues.

As you'll recall, Intel announced its 45nm process with HKMG (High-K,
Metal Gates) to great fanfare. Various websites and forums proclaimed it
an amazing achievement. Well, the standard AMD 45nm SOI without HKMG
process seems to be superior to Intel's, as they are seeing lower power
and thermal requirements at the low-end, and higher overclockability at
the high-end. AMD will be adding HKMG later on in the 45nm process too,
but so far it looks unnecessary.


As I understood the arguments over HKMG a year or so ago, it was more a
yield thing than a performance thing, although it was said to reduce
gate leakage due to tunneling.

Intel has done many things over the years (keeping the controller off
the die, killing Alpha, sticking with a front-side bus, NetBurst,
hyperthreading, not using SOI) that have occasioned critical comment.
There is always information missing from those discussions, which is
that Intel almost always has good business reasons for doing what it
does. Its judgment may be faulty, but the key is that *you do not
have access to those reasons*.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time" in some cases clearly turned
out not to be so good. Examples range from IBM's FS to their billion
dollars worth of X-ray machine in East Fishkill.

Likewise the business reasons Intel had may or may not have been "good"
in the eye of a dispassionate observer.

The one piece of information that is available (stock price) indicates
that, whatever missteps Intel may have made, it's business judgment
(as judged by markets) has proven to be superior to AMD's. The
situation with AMD has become so dire that it almost seems pointless
to talk about it, although there may be someone out there with
business judgment much better than I possess to see how a viable
enterprise can be created in the future.

AMD has been a minor portion of the market and therefore at a cost
disadvantage for years. Couple that with scratching to survive and it
can lead to misteps. Monopoly level market share makes up for a lot of
sins.

In any case, I suspect the decision against SOI was a matter of cost,
and I even vaguely remember some statements to that effect. I said
actually that I had cited stock prices as the one available indicator,
when margin (also publicly available) indicates that Intel manages to
have lower manufacturing costs. It all comes down to Intel being a
*business* and not a classroom project, a dorm room bull session, or a
soccer football team.

Intel manages to have lower manufacturing costs than AMD primarily
because it has much greater volume. Look up "learning curve".

Your post seems to confirm what I think is your ongoing delusion about
Intel: that it is simply a better marketing machine than AMD. That it
*is* a better marketing machine is probably correct. That that's all
there is to Intel is nothing short of corporate defamation, if that's
what you indeed intend to imply. Intel's real advantage, widely
acknowledged in the industry, is that it knows how to manufacture high-
end microprocessors at the lowest possible cost.

SOI is one of many dead and rotting horses on csiphc. Let it be.
What's interesting about it is historical: it played a key role in the
triumph of x86. Isn't that enough?

Robert.

Many processors are made with SOI, including all of IBM's, and the three
game console processors. So I don't know why you think it is a dead and
rotting horse. It has some advantages, after all.

I will now return all of you to your acrimonious disputes.

del

On Dec 22, 12:15*am, Del Cecchi` wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:


Intel has done many things over the years (keeping the controller off
the die, killing Alpha, sticking with a front-side bus, NetBurst,
hyperthreading, not using SOI) that have occasioned critical comment.
There is always information missing from those discussions, which is
that Intel almost always has good business reasons for doing what it
does. *Its judgment may be faulty, but the key is that *you do not
have access to those reasons*.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time" in some cases clearly turned
out not to be so good. *Examples range from IBM's FS to their billion
dollars worth of X-ray machine in East Fishkill.

Likewise the business reasons Intel had may or may not have been "good"
in the eye of a dispassionate observer.

Dispassionate observers of SOI for x86 (or of Intel) don't work for
IBM. I don't work for either, have never worked for either, and I
don't own stock in either, either directly or indirectly.

I'd *love* to know how Intel made some of its decisions. The only one
that's process-related is how Intel managed to be caught so flat-
footed at 90nm. Even there, the real question is why they didn't
abandon NetBurst sooner than they did. What kinds of lies were they
telling themselves? What did they know and when did they know it?

Those are, to me, really interesting questions to ask, but they don't
lend themselves to the soccer stadium hooliganism that has so often
passed for discussion, and only rarely do we get to hear anyone who
actually knows anything speak to them.


The one piece of information that is available (stock price) indicates
that, whatever missteps Intel may have made, it's business judgment
(as judged by markets) has proven to be superior to AMD's. *The
situation with AMD has become so dire that it almost seems pointless
to talk about it, although there may be someone out there with
business judgment much better than I possess to see how a viable
enterprise can be created in the future.

AMD has been a minor portion of the market and therefore at a cost
disadvantage for years. *Couple that with scratching to survive and it
can lead to misteps. *Monopoly level market share makes up for a lot of
sins.

You could just as well say that Intel has suffered for its size, and
it has, as I think IBM has, in the past, paid for its size. Intel is
famous for being able to replicate manufacturing on a large scale. On
the face of it, though, experience with Prescott suggests that Intel
is maybe not so good at managing huge design resources--but that's
only a guess. Big organizations can have big economies of scale.
They can also have bloated and dysfunctional org charts.



In any case, I suspect the decision against SOI was a matter of cost,
and I even vaguely remember some statements to that effect. *I said
actually that I had cited stock prices as the one available indicator,
when margin (also publicly available) indicates that Intel manages to
have lower manufacturing costs. *It all comes down to Intel being a
*business* and not a classroom project, a dorm room bull session, or a
soccer football team.

Intel manages to have lower manufacturing costs than AMD primarily
because it has much greater volume. *Look up "learning curve".

I'm not in the business, so I couldn't comment on how easy it is to
scale up process manufacturing. Not trivial, though, I'll bet.



Your post seems to confirm what I think is your ongoing delusion about
Intel: that it is simply a better marketing machine than AMD. *That it
*is* a better marketing machine is probably correct. *That that's all
there is to Intel is nothing short of corporate defamation, if that's
what you indeed intend to imply. *Intel's real advantage, widely
acknowledged in the industry, is that it knows how to manufacture high-
end microprocessors at the lowest possible cost.

SOI is one of many dead and rotting horses on csiphc. *Let it be.
What's interesting about it is historical: it played a key role in the
triumph of x86. *Isn't that enough?


Many processors are made with SOI, including all of IBM's, and the three
game console processors. *So I don't know why you think it is a dead and
rotting horse. *It has some advantages, after all.

One can never be too careful when writing a post. I naively assumed
the implied context of the groups: ibm pc's and intel systems. From
those points of view, it's all old news, unless, of course, you're
scratching around for positive things to say about AMD's lagging
technology or trying to revive an old argument.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:
You both have chosen to make it personal. So be it. It is personal.
Oh, so I undestand, you lack your own will. You're predetermined, you're
not guilty, you're just pushed to trolling by evil Us.

You made one of the more memorably preposterous claims in my memory of
reading Usenet. Subsequent events have made the preposterousness of
your claim even more obvious.

As I said, those I work for somehow didn't loose billions, they made
money and even now make money. So you're demostrating your cluelessness
and nothing more.

If you're going to spend the rest of
your time on Usenet trying to repair your damaged ego, there's no
real reason for me to respond to you.

Yet, you answered You're so predictable, troll.

If anyone should be barking, it would be the OP, because it was his
post that I mocked. You're not properly involved at all.

Uh, oh.

\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

On Dec 31, 6:07*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
You both have chosen to make it personal. *So be it. *It is personal.
Oh, so I undestand, you lack your own will. You're predetermined, you're
not guilty, you're just pushed to trolling by evil Us.

You made one of the more memorably preposterous claims in my memory of
reading Usenet. *Subsequent events have made the preposterousness of
your claim even more obvious.

As I said, those I work for somehow didn't loose billions, they made
money and even now make money. So you're demostrating your cluelessness
and nothing more.

You said that the people in finance know how to manage risk. The fact
that the people you're working for haven't lost money proves nothing.
Up until very recently, lots of companies on Wall Street have made
tons of money. They didn't suddenly get stupid, and it wasn't some
isolated failure.

The fundamental mistake they made was to assume that, because markets
have behaved that way in the past, with predictable consequences, they
will continue to behave that way in the future, with similarly
predictable consequences. That's the risk methodology they have
depended on in the past, and it's the risk methodology that your
customers believe will work just as well for software as it has for
markets.

It's possible that the risk methodology will actually work better for
software than it will for markets, but that's pure conjecture. The
fact that your customers manage risk in markets is, at the moment, a
howlingly bad credential for them as being all-knowing about risk
management.

Robert.