tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post115853550580687027..comments2023-08-01T11:15:10.503-04:00Comments on Scientia's Blog: Could 2007 be a Repeat of 2002 for AMD? Part II.Scientia from AMDZonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-82139143560536271632006-12-28T08:17:00.000-05:002006-12-28T08:17:00.000-05:00D1D can run production but only at a low volume. D...D1D can run production but only at a low volume. D1D is and will remain the development FAB. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that Intel doesn't have D1C upgraded inline with D1D since by being right next door it would appear that production could start almost immediately from D1D. In other words, it seems strange that this isn't the first run FAB.<br /><br />No, APM does not give AMD the ability toScientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159738525077045212006-10-01T17:35:00.000-04:002006-10-01T17:35:00.000-04:00I find it strange how Intel is able to run 65nm pr...I find it strange how Intel is able to run 65nm production in D1d an do process development on 45nm in the same building (in fact I've heard this crazy notion that some specific tools actual support both production and development lines).<BR/><BR/>They also managed to do this in D1c as well.<BR/><BR/>As APM is responsible for this within AMD, I'm wondering how is this possible as Intel does not Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159737713995636892006-10-01T17:21:00.000-04:002006-10-01T17:21:00.000-04:00"As I recall, D1C hasn't been upgraded to 65nm yet..."As I recall, D1C hasn't been upgraded to 65nm yet."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps but it has been running PRODUCTION on 90nm (not design) for some time now; it hasn't done "design" for a long time. Intel has always upgraded their design fabs to production fabs after 1 or 2 generations of development.<BR/><BR/>D1a = F15 (200mm)<BR/>D1b = F20 (200mm)<BR/>D1c = "D1c" (300mm) - I don't think they renamed this<Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159682854886186732006-10-01T02:07:00.000-04:002006-10-01T02:07:00.000-04:0080% of DESKTOP! Not 80% of total chip production! ...<I>80% of DESKTOP! Not 80% of total chip production! As P4 is EOL Q2'07 this is a short term pressure (and shrinks overtime as P4 SKU's start phasing out at end of Q4'06).</I><BR/><BR/>It's over 60% of server chips but these are much lower volume. C2D won't even be 30% of Intel's production by end of 2006.<BR/><BR/><I>This is smply not true - D1c is no longer a "design" fab and simply produces "Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159678377823004512006-10-01T00:52:00.000-04:002006-10-01T00:52:00.000-04:00"Releasing Conroe at low prices does put pressure ..."Releasing Conroe at low prices does put pressure on AMD but it puts even more pressure on Intel's P4 line which will still make up around 80% of the total chip volume in the last two quarters."<BR/><BR/>80% of DESKTOP! Not 80% of total chip production! As P4 is EOL Q2'07 this is a short term pressure (and shrinks overtime as P4 SKU's start phasing out at end of Q4'06).<BR/><BR/>As far as I know Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159594784099602542006-09-30T01:39:00.000-04:002006-09-30T01:39:00.000-04:00Well, I'm confident in saying that Conroe is 15% f...Well, I'm confident in saying that Conroe is 15% faster at the same clock. It's possible that Conroe is faster than this but I haven't seen good enough testing to confirm this. Right now, I'd say 4200+ is a pretty good match for E6400 but E6400 looks better in SSE. I'd really like to see some good tests where the second core is loaded before the benchmarks are run on the first core. Tom's Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159575073796104972006-09-29T20:11:00.000-04:002006-09-29T20:11:00.000-04:00Hey scientia isnt it in terms of performance: ****...Hey scientia isnt it in terms of performance: <BR/><BR/>***** - X6800<BR/>***** - E6700<BR/>Fx-62 - E6600<BR/>5000+ - E6400<BR/>4600+ - E6300<BR/><BR/>And not the 4200+ you place for E6300 and 4600+ you placed for E6400??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159065486721589712006-09-23T22:38:00.000-04:002006-09-23T22:38:00.000-04:00I meant Intel started at 40/65/80 for dual core, m...<I>I meant Intel started at 40/65/80 for dual core, more headroom to go higher when adding more cores and clock, while AMD will have to squeeze quads into their current TDP, already the max is at 120W.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll try explaining this again. Intel fits into 40/65/80 watts because it has already at 65nm and has already implemented sophisticated power control that AMD has not implemented yet Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159064111301787832006-09-23T22:15:00.000-04:002006-09-23T22:15:00.000-04:00I meant Intel started at 40/65/80 for dual core, m...I meant Intel started at 40/65/80 for dual core, more headroom to go higher when adding more cores and clock, while AMD will have to squeeze quads into their current TDP, already the max is at 120W. TDP is designated for cooling requirements, I don't see don't see what an off chip memory controller matters, unless you're talking about power consumption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159058279997844102006-09-23T20:37:00.000-04:002006-09-23T20:37:00.000-04:00Theoretical 20%:)It's Intel's theory that if the c...<I>Theoretical 20%:)</I><BR/><BR/>It's Intel's theory that if the cpu draws more than it's partial TDP number that the cpu will be saved by thermal throttling. However, it isn't fair to compare a typical max number with an actual max number.<BR/><BR/><I>But even with your numbers<BR/>Core 2 started out lower so it had more room to grow.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it didn't. Let's add the 15 watts forScientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159048381645927342006-09-23T17:53:00.000-04:002006-09-23T17:53:00.000-04:00Theoretical 20%:)But even with your numbersCore 2 ...Theoretical 20%:)<BR/>But even with your numbers<BR/>Core 2 started out lower so it had more room to grow. K8L(Barcelona) must have some magical powers if it'll have 4 cores, same TDP as previous generation, and still be clocked high enough for single threaded stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159046744376496232006-09-23T17:25:00.000-04:002006-09-23T17:25:00.000-04:00You have to multiply Intel's ratings by 20% to mat...You have to multiply Intel's ratings by 20% to match AMD's. However, the numbers are still pretty close.Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1159046697473425902006-09-23T17:24:00.000-04:002006-09-23T17:24:00.000-04:00Today's dual core Opteron 22XXs are currently rate...<I>Today's dual core Opteron 22XXs are currently rated 68/95/120W.<BR/>http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=671378&starttime=0&endtime=0<BR/>Quad core Xeons are rated 50/80/120.</I><BR/><BR/>You have to multiply Intel's ratings by 20% to make them match AMD's ratings. AMD uses maximum power whereas Intel uses typical power. So, we get:<BR/><BR/>Xeon - 60, 96, 144<BR/>K8L - 68, 95, 120<BR/><BR/>Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158953909929741812006-09-22T15:38:00.000-04:002006-09-22T15:38:00.000-04:00Just a summarizartion from my last post, and more ...Just a summarizartion from my last post, and more direct response to your post:D<BR/><BR/>http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/15/amd_releases_socket_f_and_am2_opteron/<BR/>"..and consume the !same power as today's dual-core processors: AMD confirmed to TG Daily that it will be offering !a 68W quad-core processor."<BR/><BR/>Today's dual core Opteron 22XXs are currently rated 68/95/120W.<BR/>http://Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158952716370513202006-09-22T15:18:00.000-04:002006-09-22T15:18:00.000-04:00I believe AMD has said they'll increase performanc...I believe AMD has said they'll increase performance yet keep the same thermal envelope, not lower it. <BR/>Woodcrest 51XXs are 40W (low voltage) 65W (mainstream) 80W(performance).<BR/>Socket F is 68W (low voltage) 95W (mainstream) 120W performance.<BR/>Socket F is a good ~50% higher than Intel TDP wise. <BR/>65nm has reduced AM2 ~27% according to the tweakers.net article.<BR/>Assuming a 27% Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158940333360146282006-09-22T11:52:00.000-04:002006-09-22T11:52:00.000-04:00Assuming that Kentsfield is compatible with most s...Assuming that Kentsfield is compatible with most socket 775 and 771 boards this still leaves the original problem. You are talking about around 120 watts for a single Kentsfield versus 130 watts for two K8L's. This will cut Intel's performance/watt in half compared to AMD and also prevent Kentsfield's being used in any high density or large scale servers. However, I think Kentsfield and Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158920533782044472006-09-22T06:22:00.000-04:002006-09-22T06:22:00.000-04:00http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_cont...http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=14&limit=1&limitstart=9http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=14&limit=1&limitstart=9<BR/><BR/>Page 10 of 10<BR/><BR/>Conclusion:<BR/>My original intention with this evaluation was to cover rendering, virtualization, and multi-tasking in depth. However the official release date wasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158900605137717942006-09-22T00:50:00.000-04:002006-09-22T00:50:00.000-04:00It isn't on the home page. I did a search but coul...It isn't on the home page. I did a search but couldn't find the phrase anywhere on the website either.Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158896895192268772006-09-21T23:48:00.000-04:002006-09-21T23:48:00.000-04:00Sean Kalinich of PlanetX64 is 'they'Sean Kalinich of PlanetX64 is 'they'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158894760609702862006-09-21T23:12:00.000-04:002006-09-21T23:12:00.000-04:00They said it not me,Who is "they"? and I brought i...<I>They said it not me,</I><BR/><BR/>Who is "they"?<BR/><BR/><I> and I brought it up since you seem not content with other hardware sites, so here's an AMD site:)</I><BR/><BR/>The quality of a site isn't determined by which processor they prefer. It's more important to be honest.<BR/><BR/><I>And I don't understand your speed grades? </I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, I didn't say that clearly.<BR/><BR/>X6800 Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158893703353847802006-09-21T22:55:00.000-04:002006-09-21T22:55:00.000-04:00Single socket P4s?Well, it seems like you should b...<I>Single socket P4s?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, it seems like you should be able to put a Conroe (or a Kentsfield) in any socket 775 board. That would be an upgrade path.Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158893405177316232006-09-21T22:50:00.000-04:002006-09-21T22:50:00.000-04:00They said it not me, and I brought it up since you...They said it not me, and I brought it up since you seem not content with other hardware sites, so here's an AMD site:)<BR/><BR/>And I don't understand your speed grades? But I think it makes more sense to compare CPUs by price, rather than clocks and pipelines and such.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158893397577242502006-09-21T22:49:00.000-04:002006-09-21T22:49:00.000-04:00http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_cont...<I>http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=14<BR/>AMD fan site</I><BR/><BR/>BTW, I'm not sure why you mentioned that it was an AMD fan site. Perhaps you assume that because I mention AMDZone that I'm biased against Intel, etc. I've seen the name Scientia used in other places so I wanted it to be clear which one I was. I've bought both AMD and Intel based Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158891777541657472006-09-21T22:22:00.000-04:002006-09-21T22:22:00.000-04:00http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_cont...<I>http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=14<BR/>AMD fan site<BR/><BR/>"they surpassed it significantly. <BR/><BR/>Intel’s new architecture is able to pretty much pound AMD into submission"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Intel did surpass AMD significantly. Comparing a 2.8Ghz chip with a 2.4Ghz chip is 2 1/2 speed grades Scientia from AMDZonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11307174874527564058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32351755.post-1158878041286508832006-09-21T18:34:00.000-04:002006-09-21T18:34:00.000-04:00Mac Pro uses 5000 I believe. Single socket P4s?..h...Mac Pro uses 5000 I believe. Single socket P4s?<BR/>..<BR/>http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4253<BR/>"Intel is planning to release quad-core Kentsfield based Xeon 3000 seriesprocessors. The new Xeon X3220 and X3210 processors will be identical to the recently named Intel Core 2 Quadro processors and share the same Kentsfield core."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com