Hmm so this line is using DDR2 Ram huh? heres my problem saying quad-core they mention before of just using two dual core processors and compile it in a dual socketed motherboard , is this the quad core? or a innovative new technology that they made of just a single chip containing 4 cores? tell me that thank you
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
AMD Next Generation Processor Technology Slides
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Let us just look at theoretical capacity, and actual capacity.....
AMD's ACTUAL capacity is 150% of the theoretical, while Intels is about 40%
So in other words, AMD is getting about 150% yeilds, Intel is getting about 40%...
That ought give you an idea what APM is all about.
AMD's ACTUAL capacity is 150% of the theoretical, while Intels is about 40%
So in other words, AMD is getting about 150% yeilds, Intel is getting about 40%...
That ought give you an idea what APM is all about.
brentpresley said:
Did you read my post or did the !!!!!! in you take over and force you to mash keys like a monkey? Look at how much silicon Amd is producing now! There stated goal is 40% of the market. And they plan to do this with only a couple fabs. Do you understand that?
Now go and research how they can do it and get armed with some information other then you think someone is full of shit.
Intels 65nm process and Amds are not the same. You seem to think that all processors are designed and manufactured the same way when that could'nt be farther from the truth. Furthermore Amd's chips for the last 3 years have been faster and cooler then anything Intel has had. Or have we already forgot that. They did'nt need to switch processes as badly as Intel. And it wasent a smaller die Amd was worried about so much as there move to larger wafers for increased yields.
Energy consumption is one of the most important factors a large IT department has to deal with when purchasing new equipment. Buying a new processor may only raise joe blows electric bill by a couple dollars, But a large IT deparment buying hundreds and thousands of procs may raise theres by tens of thousands of dollars not to mention having to add more coooling to handle all the extra heat.
We live in a bean counter ran economy, Wasteful spending is punished by being fired. An it person being slapped with a shrinnking budget can recoup lost dollars by changing to a processor that lowers energy consumption and saves his company money.
Intels production in fabs is largely staff dependent, they do not have no where near the automation Amd has and the differences between the two is mind boggling. They do not have no where near the same level of controle in the manufacturing process. Amd has thousands of patents reguarding processor manufacturing which Intel does not. Just like Intel used Megahertz to increase processor performance they use brute force manufacturing to pump out processors. But what did it matter when Intel was the #1 kid on the block? But now there laying people off and trying to get leaner and meaner, there building 3 new fabs comapred to Amd's 1 new fab in new york.
Amd on the other hand did not have a warchest like Intel to build fabs which cost Billions of dollars, so they took a different approach with automation and controle. One of AMD's fabs is many times less costly to operate, can produce more lines of chips at the same time and will have a much higher yield then any of Intels Fabs. AMD can controle processor assembly down to a transistor. A transisitor! That my friend is a wet dream of Intels.
You don't know what your talking about and you need to research Amd before yapping about Intel. AMD's fabs are lightyears ahead of Intels no matter how much it breaks your heart. And unless Intel wants to start paying licensing fees to Amd they wo'nt be reaching Amds level of automation anytime in the near furture.
(Please don't take this seriously)
Let's see what I gleaned from your post:
1) Did you read my post or did the !!!!!! in you take over and force you to mash keys like a monkey?
2) someone is full of shit
3) You seem to think
4) could'nt be farther from the truth
5) Furthermore
6) have we already forgot that
7) You don't know what your talking about
8) you need to research
Don't get me wrong, you had some really good points in there. These are just some of the things that I will remember at the end of the day.
Let's see what I gleaned from your post:
1) Did you read my post or did the !!!!!! in you take over and force you to mash keys like a monkey?
2) someone is full of shit
3) You seem to think
4) could'nt be farther from the truth
5) Furthermore
6) have we already forgot that
7) You don't know what your talking about
8) you need to research
Don't get me wrong, you had some really good points in there. These are just some of the things that I will remember at the end of the day.
eblislyge said:
I think you may want top read your information again, its 40% of the server market, not world demand.
eblislyge said:
You mean to relieve capacity constraints, right?
eblislyge said:
I would really question that statement about patents, Intel has been doing there own R&D for some time now, and to think that AMD has more patents is ridiculous. For starters AMD do almost all of there R&D in connection with IBM, so those patents would not be their own, it would be shared.
Not sure where your going with the last statement, but all of Intels new FABS are for 45nm.
eblislyge said:
Sorry man but I call BS, unless you work at AMD, or Intel, you will never know yields.
Look at it this way, if Intels yields were so bad, (hence why some people say they need so many fabs), why is it that with 6 FABS produce 75% of the worlds CPU's, all the while AMD + Chartered can only make 25%?
Also, "copy exactly" can make multiple lines of chips as well.
eblislyge said:
Wrong, why don't you explain Intels EUV Lithography program, then well talk about AMD's lightyear advantage...lol
ToastMaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 483
Ok, so let's set down a few neutral ideas, shall we?
For those who argue that AMD is atleast a year behind on the reduction of micron size, solely due to the fact that Intel's "technology" is any better than AMDs, really need to sit down and wake up to the logic. The fact that Intel was able to release 65 nm products earlier primarly relates to two areas: 1) Intel can afford to spend more resources on conversion to 65 nm, and 2) they have the fab space to convert one, while others focus on the production of current-generation CPUs. That way, once the fab is able to begin putting on processors on a smaller micron size, older fabs can then be slowly phased into the upgrade period while lower-micron sizes are now being produced at a newer fab.
AMD does not have that option. They have two fabs, and can't afford to just take one entire fab or most of a fab down to convert it over. Intel has the advantage thanks to money and resources.
As for R&D, Intel once again has the advantage in money and resources. They far outspend AMD in that department. However, enumae, to state that AMD does most of their research in collaboration with IBM is non-sense. IBM has contributed in some very important design areas, such as SOI. But most of AMD's R&D is done in-house, by AMD design teams. That's like saying the Athlon64 is an IBM processor, which is nonsense.
And finally, let me point this out: right now, AMD has essentially 1 Fab and part of another Fab working on producing processors. One of those fabs is using 200mm wafers, the other 300mm. Ironically, the one that is using the more-economical wafer size, is also the one not working at full capacity due to a variety of reasons. Plus, they have a licensed Fab that they're using some space from (as far as I know, it isn't the entire fab working on production).
So essentially, let's say 2 1/2 fab's worth of capacity are producing Athlon 64s, and that's being generous.
Now, let's look at this quote: "Intel still produces ~80% of the world's x86 microprocessors, and does so using 4-5 fabs. That would put it right in the same ballpark as AMD in terms of CPUs per fab w/ 1 (soon to be 2) fab that produces ~20%. "
and
"Look at it this way, if Intels yields were so bad, (hence why some people say they need so many fabs), why is it that with 6 FABS produce 75% of the worlds CPU's, all the while AMD + Chartered can only make 25%?"
Intel needs so many Fabs to meet demand generally. That's about it. Not only that, but considering that all of their 65nm plants are able to use 300mm wafers, they're not only making use of a larger-producing wafer size, but the greater economics of 65nm sizes as well. With so many fabs, how could you not expect Intel to ship far more processors each year than AMD? Hell, Intel has more 65nm, 300mm wafer fabs than AMD has total (including the fab they licensed).
Common sense people, common sense...
For those who argue that AMD is atleast a year behind on the reduction of micron size, solely due to the fact that Intel's "technology" is any better than AMDs, really need to sit down and wake up to the logic. The fact that Intel was able to release 65 nm products earlier primarly relates to two areas: 1) Intel can afford to spend more resources on conversion to 65 nm, and 2) they have the fab space to convert one, while others focus on the production of current-generation CPUs. That way, once the fab is able to begin putting on processors on a smaller micron size, older fabs can then be slowly phased into the upgrade period while lower-micron sizes are now being produced at a newer fab.
AMD does not have that option. They have two fabs, and can't afford to just take one entire fab or most of a fab down to convert it over. Intel has the advantage thanks to money and resources.
As for R&D, Intel once again has the advantage in money and resources. They far outspend AMD in that department. However, enumae, to state that AMD does most of their research in collaboration with IBM is non-sense. IBM has contributed in some very important design areas, such as SOI. But most of AMD's R&D is done in-house, by AMD design teams. That's like saying the Athlon64 is an IBM processor, which is nonsense.
And finally, let me point this out: right now, AMD has essentially 1 Fab and part of another Fab working on producing processors. One of those fabs is using 200mm wafers, the other 300mm. Ironically, the one that is using the more-economical wafer size, is also the one not working at full capacity due to a variety of reasons. Plus, they have a licensed Fab that they're using some space from (as far as I know, it isn't the entire fab working on production).
So essentially, let's say 2 1/2 fab's worth of capacity are producing Athlon 64s, and that's being generous.
Now, let's look at this quote: "Intel still produces ~80% of the world's x86 microprocessors, and does so using 4-5 fabs. That would put it right in the same ballpark as AMD in terms of CPUs per fab w/ 1 (soon to be 2) fab that produces ~20%. "
and
"Look at it this way, if Intels yields were so bad, (hence why some people say they need so many fabs), why is it that with 6 FABS produce 75% of the worlds CPU's, all the while AMD + Chartered can only make 25%?"
Intel needs so many Fabs to meet demand generally. That's about it. Not only that, but considering that all of their 65nm plants are able to use 300mm wafers, they're not only making use of a larger-producing wafer size, but the greater economics of 65nm sizes as well. With so many fabs, how could you not expect Intel to ship far more processors each year than AMD? Hell, Intel has more 65nm, 300mm wafer fabs than AMD has total (including the fab they licensed).
Common sense people, common sense...
ToastMaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 483
duby229 said:
1) Quote sources.
2) All that matters, at the end of the day, is what's actually being produced. If it's not the theoretical number, than the theoretical number doesn't matter
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 22,066
Isn't EUV-L old news?enumae said:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Sweeney.html
Oh wow. The 45nm EUV-L process was developed more than 9 years ago. In part by intel and AMD working together. Neato!EUV article circa 1997 said:
Intel has 11 fabs worldwide today. The company also has six assembly and test sites worldwide. Intel has 15 manufacturing sites worldwide. Sites within the United States are located in Chandler, Ariz.; Santa Clara, Calif.; Colorado Springs, Colo.; Hudson, Mass.; Rio Rancho, N.M.; Hillsboro, Ore.; and Dupont, Wash. Sites outside the United States are located in Shanghai, China; San Jose, Costa Rica; Leixlip, Ireland; Jerusalem, IsraelQiryat Gat, Israel; Kulim, Malaysia; Penang, Malaysia; and Cavite, Philippines. Approximately half of Intel's 78,700 employees work within Intel's Technology Manufacturing Group.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/manufacturing/manufacturing_at_a_glance.pdf
Let me type this slowly so you can understand it. Amd has a huge amount of patents on the equipment and processes it uses to make microprocessors. It's factories are extremely automated with computers and robotics and they do not require alot of manpower to make there product. There computers and robotics allow them to have extremely high yields verusus other chip makers because they can controle they actual assembly of chips much much much better then anyone else in the entire world. And they can also do it alot cheaper cause they dont have to have a huge army of engineers just make a chip.
No one in the chip industry disputes this, it has been written about many times over by lots of publications on what a shear marvel of enginering Amd can work when it produces product. They are so advanced that they can change chip recipes on each batch of wafer. Intel by contrast would have to retool a line to do the same thing which would take millions of dollars and shut them down. Whereas Amd can make pretty much any processor it wants, when it wants, at any time on any line.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_9999,00.html?redir=COAPM
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_9999_10000,00.html
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_9999_10002,00.html
http://www.physorg.com/news58.html
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2005/12/intels-chest-beating-shows-lack-of.html
The difference between INTEL and AMD is the silicon wafer and the process. INTEL uses bulk silion wafer and does strained silicon (SS). AMD uses expensive SOI wafer and does Dual Stress Linear Strained Silicon On Insulator (DSLSSOI), a technology jointly developed by AMD and IBM to improve performance and reduce heat. In terms of software, AMD's APM 2.0 is years ahead of the industry, it can control the process down to single transistor on each wafer. That's why AMD's yield is so high and why AMD can competete against INTEL's five 300mm FABs with only one 200mm FAB (FAB30). Many big FABs are starting to license AMD's APM software.
Moving to 65nm then 45nm will reduce feature length, however, due to INTEL's outdated FSB architecture, INTEL has to keep doubling cache sizes to get reasonable performance, the result is that INTEL did not get any die size reduction when going to 90nm or 65nm. In contrast, AMD CPUs, with Direct Connect Architecture, do not need big caches, consequently, AMD CPUs have reduced die size when moving to 90nm, allowing AMD to make more CPUs off the same wafer.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/semiconductor/article/CA6252221?pubdate=9/1/05
Furthermore chartered hasent done as much as you think they have. They have been getting tech from AMD to improve there manufacturing capabilities(again were seeing more about just how good amd is at making chips) and were just now starting to see AMD chips from chartered come to market.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3433971
You honestly dont know what your talking about. Try reading, it helps. And on the yield thing, companies are always blaming low yields or prosing high yields. This is pretty public info. Maybe you just have trouble finding yield info.
ToastMaster said:
Pretty simple really.... This...
http://www.semizone.com/fab/tech-display1.tcl?cat=9&company=INTEL CORPORATION
Is what Intel is capable of producing... Compare that with what they are actually producing...
Big difference.
If you want to pay for it... There is much better data here.
http://www.instat.com/r/nrep/2004/IN0401409IN.htm
And here is AMD's production capacity... Of course this will be changing shortly...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30832
ToastMaster said:
My comment was meant to be in the context of manufactoring, not chip design. As I understood it, IBM was a big part of the reason AMD had not moved to 65nm yet.
If I am wrong my bad.
ToastMaster said:
This comparison was about yields, and how if you took the 25% AMD makes from two fabs +/- and also Chartered (who makes I thought 20% of AMD's processors), and multiply that by 3 you would get Intels 6 FABS and equal yields.
I will admit I did not consider the wafer sizes, or take into accout 65nm.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 22,066
Can you find us a newer one? Specifically, one that shows intel being leaps and bounds ahead of AMD with EUV-L. I knew EUV wasn't anything new, but I really don't know the current state of utilization for either AMD or intel. I'm curious.enumae said:
eblislygel said:
Hear this puppy : AMD's yield is around 50% , while Intel hovers in the high 60s / low 70s.
Intel is using 3 or 4 ( at most ) FABs for MPUs.The rest churn chipsets , FLASH and other stuff.
The bulk of AMD's production ( 75% ) is small die single core cpus .Intel OTOH has over 60% of its production dual core CPUs which have a bigger die ( 140mm^2 Conroe or 2x81mm^2 for Presler ).It's easy to see why Intel needs more FABs.They produce bigger dies and aout 3 times as many as AMD.
You keep babling about AMD's APM as the most important invention since the hole in the donut.
Intel has at least the same level of automation as AMD , has simpler process ( which produces better transistors than AMD's "advanced APM" and complicated process ) and what's more it brings new processes to the market faster than everyone else.
*Edited for ad-homs..
savantu said:
ROFL! Mature yields are typically in the high 80's and possibly even in the 90's. Are you trying to claim that after years of tweaking and working on the 90nm process AMD's yields are not above the 50% mark? If so, you are totally mistaken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrication_(semiconductor)
While I could be wrong, I frequently get the impression that you just make sh1t up whenever you feel like it. Time and time and time again. Why don't you knock it off? It makes you look like a fool.
brentpresley
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 943
LOL - I go away for a day and this thread goes to AMDfa_nboydom.
Just one thing you guys need to remember when arguing who has the "better" manuf. tech.
BOTH companies buy their robotics, silicon, litography from the same suppliers. BOTH companies are ACTIVELY involved in the development of new process tech (Intel does this on their own, AMD does it in conjunction w/ IBM). They BOTH patent the technology and make it available to anyone that wants to use it (via license fees).
And to the AMD fa_nboys - this one will REALLY eat you up - AMD pays something like $4-6 to Intel for every x86 chip they sell. Why? Intel invented and patented the x86 architecture (and even though some of those patents are "open" now, lots of them like MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 are not and royalties must be paid to Intel to keep those features in AMD chips).
And BEFORE you even go there - I am no Intel fa_nboy. My LAST 6 rigs have ALL been AMD (and loved every one of them). But not even the latest, an Opty 170 @ 2.8GHz holds a candle to the new E6600 I just built.
Just one thing you guys need to remember when arguing who has the "better" manuf. tech.
BOTH companies buy their robotics, silicon, litography from the same suppliers. BOTH companies are ACTIVELY involved in the development of new process tech (Intel does this on their own, AMD does it in conjunction w/ IBM). They BOTH patent the technology and make it available to anyone that wants to use it (via license fees).
And to the AMD fa_nboys - this one will REALLY eat you up - AMD pays something like $4-6 to Intel for every x86 chip they sell. Why? Intel invented and patented the x86 architecture (and even though some of those patents are "open" now, lots of them like MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 are not and royalties must be paid to Intel to keep those features in AMD chips).
And BEFORE you even go there - I am no Intel fa_nboy. My LAST 6 rigs have ALL been AMD (and loved every one of them). But not even the latest, an Opty 170 @ 2.8GHz holds a candle to the new E6600 I just built.
DoomRulz said:
This is nothing new. Technology is always coming out, that nothing supports/needs currently. 32-bit CPUs and OS's came out not too long ago, and it was quite some time before any software was more than 16-bit. 3D-Video cards came out, same story. We've seen the 64-bit cpu come, the dual-core, the PPU. The hardware has to be there, before any software is going to be developed for it.
Im wondering how this quad-core technology would be for a budget-server build. It wont ever compare to true SMP systems with four cpus, but if someone is looking to stay under $1k on a budget build...
brentpresley said:LOL - I go away for a day and this thread goes to AMDfa_nboydom.
Just one thing you guys need to remember when arguing who has the "better" manuf. tech.
BOTH companies buy their robotics, silicon, litography from the same suppliers. BOTH companies are ACTIVELY involved in the development of new process tech (Intel does this on their own, AMD does it in conjunction w/ IBM). They BOTH patent the technology and make it available to anyone that wants to use it (via license fees).
And to the AMD fa_nboys - this one will REALLY eat you up - AMD pays something like $4-6 to Intel for every x86 chip they sell. Why? Intel invented and patented the x86 architecture (and even though some of those patents are "open" now, lots of them like MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 are not and royalties must be paid to Intel to keep those features in AMD chips).
And BEFORE you even go there - I am no Intel fa_nboy. My LAST 6 rigs have ALL been AMD (and loved every one of them). But not even the latest, an Opty 170 @ 2.8GHz holds a candle to the new E6600 I just built.
Just to inform you....
Your completely wrong....
There is a court enforced technology share agreement between SEVERAL x86 developers. Including IBM, Transmeta Via, Intel, AMD, and TI... and some others I cant think of.
You might want to look into it some time. History is a valuable tool, especially when making claims such as this. Assumptions, usually just make you look like a fool.
brentpresley
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 943
duby229 said:
Care to BACK THAT up w/ a link, or just going to spout things w/ no references?
MY REFERENCE:
http://news.com.com/AMD+compatibility+no+problem+for+Intel+chip/2100-1006_3-5159067.html
Near the bottom of the page.
Now who looks like a fool?
EDIT - so YOU are right that patents have to be shared, but I AM right that AMD has to pay a royalty to Intel for each x86 chip made. Just to set the record straight.
savantu said:Hear this puppy : AMD's yield is around 50% , while Intel hovers in the high 60s / low 70s.
Intel is using 3 or 4 ( at most ) FABs for MPUs.The rest churn chipsets , FLASH and other stuff.
The bulk of AMD's production ( 75% ) is small die single core cpus .Intel OTOH has over 60% of its production dual core CPUs which have a bigger die ( 140mm^2 Conroe or 2x81mm^2 for Presler ).It's easy to see why Intel needs more FABs.They produce bigger dies and aout 3 times as many as AMD.
You keep babling about AMD's APM as the most important invention since the hole in the donut.
Intel has at least the same level of automation as AMD , has simpler process ( which produces better transistors than AMD's "advanced APM" and complicated process ) and what's more it brings new processes to the market faster than everyone else.
*Edited for ad-homs..
bahahahahah. I love a good laugh.
brentpresley said:Care to BACK THAT up w/ a link, or just going to spout things w/ no references?
MY REFERENCE:
http://news.com.com/AMD+compatibility+no+problem+for+Intel+chip/2100-1006_3-5159067.html
Near the bottom of the page.
Now who looks like a fool?
EDIT - so YOU are right that patents have to be shared, but I AM right that AMD has to pay a royalty to Intel for each x86 chip made. Just to set the record straight.
Anyone who has a brief sense of history knows that Via and Amd has to pay Intel royalty for the x86 architecture.
But don't worry, once middle-school starts next week, Duby will be busy with history class and won't have much time to post anymore ridiculously biased comments anymore.
Lolento said:
Oy..... Personal attacks are against the rules.....
There are no royalty fees. It is a tech agreement that was made behind closed doors with a judge giving consent. There was more then just AMD, and Intel involved. TI, IBM, Transmeta, and others that are no longer around... I believe NexGen, and cyrix were involved too.
duby229 said:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
R-E-A-D the agreement. Do a ctrl-F for the word 'royalties'.
Another link regarding Via (in case you're a Via fan also):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdext/is_200304/ai_ziff39835
Next time, please verify your facts before posting anything that you don't personally know. Citing your sources also helps.
duby229 said:
These are just ridiculous sources...I don't even know how to respond to them...
Running at 150% capacity doesn't mean you're getting 150% yield. Running at 150% capacity is a red flag for any manufacturer.
At 150% capacity, you will run into problems with maintenance and calibration intervals. Even running 100% capacity is not good...please read a book on high volume low mix manufacturing.
brentpresley
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 943
Lolento said:
ROTFLMAO!!!!
That made my night.
I wish people were required to post their AGE in their profile and we had an option to just ignore users below 12.
Lolento said:
OK !!!!!!... Lets do this...
I'll tell you how it is, and you tell me some more of your fud....
http://sst.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=HOME&ARTICLE_ID=261937&VERSION_NUM=2&p=5
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_9999_10000,00.html
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/04/19/behind_the_closed_doors_of_amd/index.html
http://www.cleanroom-technology.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=34291
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30831
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/12/HNamdfab_1.html
This is what it is about. It's about offering a level of precision that Intel cant match. These are the facts deal with it.
I wont do your research for you. You can get off your ass and do it yourself from now on.
brentpresley
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 943
So I take it you made it into AMD's school of cheerleading huh?
brentpresley
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 943
And how do you get 150% yield?
That would mean you are CREATING silicon from AIR.
Um, right.
That would mean you are CREATING silicon from AIR.
Um, right.
Lolento said:
Your citing irrelevant agreements. Both of which clearly show Intel in a monopolistic light. Thank you for pointing these out though... I'll be glad to add them to my arsenal...
http://www10.edacafe.com/nbc/articles/view_weekly.php?articleid=209158
I dont know if Intel, and AMD have OTHER agreements or not... I'd suspect they do.... But either way AMD does not as you say, pay intel for every chip they sell...
D
Deleted member 79192
Guest
Some neat innovations, there... L3 cache, dynamic core activation (haha that's my term for it can't remember what the article called it). Should prove very promising.
duby229 said:
None of the your sources explain how a process can go to 150% of capacity. Theoretically, 100% is possible. However, ic manufacturing is not just about pumping out wafers.
Even if AMD is only building 1 single design, they would still need to have down time for QC, maintenance and calibration. In case of multiple designs, machine down time for process setup, QC buyoff will eat up more capacity....
Make sure you read a book on basic manufacturing theories before you quote something like 150%...it is a joke
How do you fill a 1 liter cup with 1.5 liters of water? hahahaha
I feel like my IQ just dropped a few points by trying to explain this....hahahaha
Please scour the net for more manufacturing jargons....6-sigma, APM, APQP....what else? I was in ic manufacturing for 5 years before I left last year because I didn't want to get screwed by handling MS's C1/C2 project.
duby229 said:
Well, I guess if EDACAFE says it's true, then it must be true; other sites such as Cnet are just BSing out of their asses.
Damn Via is getting ripped off for having to pay royalties while AMD doesn't....hahaha
Obviously, you just want to look at what you want to see....just continue doing that, you won't miss out on anything.
I just gave you 6 sources.... yep 6.. six s.i.x
And you still dont know... Well, I guess you can believe whatever fud you want.... 150% is just a number.
What it means and the sources I quoted say is that AMD has been able to hit 150% of fab30's designed capacity.... clear? no?
And while doing it has managed the transition from 180nm, to 130 nm, to 130nm SIO, to 90nm SOI, to 90nm SSOI....
All while under full production... Clearly the "company" you worked for isnt capable of this kind of automation.... Truelly light years ahead of what that other "company" is capable of....
That is what APM is all about....
And you still dont know... Well, I guess you can believe whatever fud you want.... 150% is just a number.
What it means and the sources I quoted say is that AMD has been able to hit 150% of fab30's designed capacity.... clear? no?
And while doing it has managed the transition from 180nm, to 130 nm, to 130nm SIO, to 90nm SOI, to 90nm SSOI....
All while under full production... Clearly the "company" you worked for isnt capable of this kind of automation.... Truelly light years ahead of what that other "company" is capable of....
That is what APM is all about....
duby229 said:
Fiscal report from AMD
http://annualreport.amd.com/PDFs/AMD-2005ACO-10K.pdf#search="intel royalty income amd"
Again, ctrl-F for 'royalty'