*AMD And IBM Unveil New 65nm Process *

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Interesting... Sounds like a BiCMOS process from that press release (though I doubt AMD or IBM use much in the way of bipolars for their CPUs). Either way, they're late to the party, Intel is about to mass produce processors on their 65nm process and they are already talking about the 45nm node. I hope that AMD and IBM stay on the ball and don't fall too far Intel on the process front.

AMD and IBM already have hand tooled and working silicon at both 45nm and 32nm from East Fishkill (announced sometime in April IIRC)...
Remember that AMD is building another Fab in 2006, most likely for the 32nm EUV parts due in 2008-9.

I find it highly unlikely that either IBM/AMD or Intel are anywhere near a refined/reliable process or mass production on the 45nm node. Sure they may have a couple of transistors here and there, but between that and a commercially viable process is a HUGE step.

Next, AMD's Fab 36 is currently a 90nm fab, that's moving to 65nm for the end of 2006. To quote Anandtech's article about the Fab opening

Unfortunately, at its grand opening, Fab 36 is still a 90nm-only fab; throughout the next year, AMD will begin the transition to 65nm production. The first CPUs built at Fab 36 will be shipping in the first quarter of 2006, with the first 65nm chips leaving Fab 36 by the end of 2006.

Sometime in 2007 AMD will have performed a "substantial amount" of the transition of Fab 36 to a 65nm semiconductor fab, bringing the grand total for the cost of Fab 36 to an astounding 2.5 billion US dollars. There is no word when Fab 36 will be completely converted to 65nm manufacturing.

source: LINK

Yesterday's announcement is in line with this timeline, they've just finished the process in East Fishkill and are transferring the technology over to Dresden. They'll produce their first test CPUs at Dresden in early 2006 and have a shipping product by late 2006.

AFAIK, this is the only new fab that AMD has recently built or is building; and I highly doubt they'll have working 32nm parts for the market in '08-'09 if they're still busy transitioning their newest fab to 65nm in 2007. FWIW, the ITRS roadmap doesn't put 32nm production until 2013.

I don't understand why people take personal offense when I mention that Intel is ahead of AMD on process geometries; it's not an opinion, it's a fact. All I said is that I hope that AMD/IBM keep up because it's good for competition regardless of which brand of CPU is in your machine.

 

[HDTVMan]

Who says you cant manufacture the 65nm parts at the IBM facility? Mature the process then upgrade the AMD plants. I would.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Interesting... Sounds like a BiCMOS process from that press release (though I doubt AMD or IBM use much in the way of bipolars for their CPUs). Either way, they're late to the party, Intel is about to mass produce processors on their 65nm process and they are already talking about the 45nm node. I hope that AMD and IBM stay on the ball and don't fall too far Intel on the process front.

AMD and IBM already have hand tooled and working silicon at both 45nm and 32nm from East Fishkill (announced sometime in April IIRC)...
Remember that AMD is building another Fab in 2006, most likely for the 32nm EUV parts due in 2008-9.

I find it highly unlikely that either IBM/AMD or Intel are anywhere near a refined/reliable process or mass production on the 45nm node. Sure they may have a couple of transistors here and there, but between that and a commercially viable process is a HUGE step.

Next, AMD's Fab 36 is currently a 90nm fab, that's moving to 65nm for the end of 2006. To quote Anandtech's article about the Fab opening

Unfortunately, at its grand opening, Fab 36 is still a 90nm-only fab; throughout the next year, AMD will begin the transition to 65nm production. The first CPUs built at Fab 36 will be shipping in the first quarter of 2006, with the first 65nm chips leaving Fab 36 by the end of 2006.

Sometime in 2007 AMD will have performed a "substantial amount" of the transition of Fab 36 to a 65nm semiconductor fab, bringing the grand total for the cost of Fab 36 to an astounding 2.5 billion US dollars. There is no word when Fab 36 will be completely converted to 65nm manufacturing.

source: LINK

Yesterday's announcement is in line with this timeline, they've just finished the process in East Fishkill and are transferring the technology over to Dresden. They'll produce their first test CPUs at Dresden in early 2006 and have a shipping product by late 2006.

AFAIK, this is the only new fab that AMD has recently built or is building; and I highly doubt they'll have working 32nm parts for the market in '08-'09 if they're still busy transitioning their newest fab to 65nm in 2007. FWIW, the ITRS roadmap doesn't put 32nm production until 2013.

I don't understand why people take personal offense when I mention that Intel is ahead of AMD on process geometries; it's not an opinion, it's a fact. All I said is that I hope that AMD/IBM keep up because it's good for competition regardless of which brand of CPU is in your machine.

Well said, AMD will still be making the 65nm transition as they enter 2007, Intel is slated to having shipping processors on the 45nm process at the late 2007 timeframe, which is quite a ways off from now, and from AMD timeline you won't see 45nm from them till mid to late 2008, it takes a minimum of 2 years before you make a process transition, and AMD has generally been 2-3 Quarters behind Intel on their transistions to the next technology node.

It's not surprising people get offended at the mention of anything positive for Intel here, as there are many AMD favourable people on this site, that don't want to see any faults with AMD.

Intel will continue to have more maufacturing capacity then AMD will have.

Intel will continue to have higher income both net and gross then AMD has.

Intel will continue to have more marketing power then AMD has.

 

[HDTVMan]

AMD can partner and produce chips through any foundry that it chooses that can get their manufacturing process online first. I read one company is gearing up for 32nm chips but it wont be online for 2 years. AMD could just have them produce the chips until they can retool one of their facilities.

Intel doesnt and wont outsource chip manufacturing which we see where Intel's ego is getting them. I dont doubt intel being back to being the performance leader any time soon but the question is when?

I think AMD has working 65nm silicon. I couldnt see them challeging intel without an Ace up their sleeve in the form of a 90nm. This is not an INTEL vs AMD its more INTEL vs IBM/AMD. The guys at IBM are very smart too at manufacturing.

 

[Hacp]

Remember, it was up until this spring that AMD fully went 90nm. So the fact that AMD will take time to fully upgrade ALL their fabs isn't new. But I doubt that AMD will be far behind Intel when it comes to 45nm. I think that by mid 2008, AMD should have at least one of their fabs producing 45, with the rest still producing 65nm and slowly transitioning to 45nm.

Intel IS ahead. It looks like AMD is about 6 months behind Intel interms of new processes. Some people make it out to be a bad thing, but if you think about it, AMD was behind Intel in the transition to 90nm, ATI was behind Nvidia in the transition to 130nm and Nvidia is still behind ATI in the 90nm transition. We all know how that turns out.

IMO, AMD needs ALOT of help to keep up with intel. IBM is very welcome, as Intel just as more cash to pump into the sytem then AMD does. Competition will drive more inovation, more power, more speed, and hopefully less emphasis on dual core performance and more emphasis on raw processor capability.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

I don't understand why people take personal offense when I mention that Intel is ahead of AMD on process geometries; it's not an opinion, it's a fact. All I said is that I hope that AMD/IBM keep up because it's good for competition regardless of which brand of CPU is in your machine.

Which advantage they've largely squandered through gross blunders in their CPU architecture..... Their advantage in that area hasn't resulted in better products lately has it? That is, unless you want your computer to be a dual-purpose computer/space heater.....

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Well said, AMD will still be making the 65nm transition as they enter 2007, Intel is slated to having shipping processors on the 45nm process at the late 2007 timeframe, which is quite a ways off from now, and from AMD timeline you won't see 45nm from them till mid to late 2008, it takes a minimum of 2 years before you make a process transition, and AMD has generally been 2-3 Quarters behind Intel on their transistions to the next technology node.

It's not surprising people get offended at the mention of anything positive for Intel here, as there are many AMD favourable people on this site, that don't want to see any faults with AMD.

Intel will continue to have more maufacturing capacity then AMD will have.

Intel will continue to have higher income both net and gross then AMD has.

Intel will continue to have more marketing power then AMD has.

But no matter how they stab it with their steely knives they just can't kill the beast....

All this is true. But when they make a demonstrably better product that gives me value for money then I'll go back to them.....

 

[dmens]

Is it just me, or does everyone here assumes that the AMD uarch will always be better than Intel? Seems like an awfully haphazard assumption.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Intel NEEDS to be ahead in process technology to pack in the massive cache sizes in an attempt to stay competitive. This is especially true for the Xeon, and don't forget about Itanium.

Intel is talking about 9 megs of cache PER CORE. :nuts:

 

[smthmlk]

Originally posted by: dmens
Is it just me, or does everyone here assumes that the AMD uarch will always be better than Intel? Seems like an awfully haphazard assumption.

Given AMD's last few years of innovation in their cpu's, I would assume (or hope) they're going to continue the trend. Thunderbird -> Athlon XP -> Athlon64 -> X2's and Opertons thrown everywhere in between that sequence.. AMD is making better and better chips as time has progressed (in the last few years, at least); you could assume at this point they won't fall off the map after the X2's & their current opterons

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Interesting... Sounds like a BiCMOS process from that press release (though I doubt AMD or IBM use much in the way of bipolars for their CPUs). Either way, they're late to the party, Intel is about to mass produce processors on their 65nm process and they are already talking about the 45nm node. I hope that AMD and IBM stay on the ball and don't fall too far Intel on the process front.

AMD and IBM already have hand tooled and working silicon at both 45nm and 32nm from East Fishkill (announced sometime in April IIRC)...
Remember that AMD is building another Fab in 2006, most likely for the 32nm EUV parts due in 2008-9.

I find it highly unlikely that either IBM/AMD or Intel are anywhere near a refined/reliable process or mass production on the 45nm node. Sure they may have a couple of transistors here and there, but between that and a commercially viable process is a HUGE step.

Next, AMD's Fab 36 is currently a 90nm fab, that's moving to 65nm for the end of 2006. To quote Anandtech's article about the Fab opening

Unfortunately, at its grand opening, Fab 36 is still a 90nm-only fab; throughout the next year, AMD will begin the transition to 65nm production. The first CPUs built at Fab 36 will be shipping in the first quarter of 2006, with the first 65nm chips leaving Fab 36 by the end of 2006.

Sometime in 2007 AMD will have performed a "substantial amount" of the transition of Fab 36 to a 65nm semiconductor fab, bringing the grand total for the cost of Fab 36 to an astounding 2.5 billion US dollars. There is no word when Fab 36 will be completely converted to 65nm manufacturing.

source: LINK

Yesterday's announcement is in line with this timeline, they've just finished the process in East Fishkill and are transferring the technology over to Dresden. They'll produce their first test CPUs at Dresden in early 2006 and have a shipping product by late 2006.

AFAIK, this is the only new fab that AMD has recently built or is building; and I highly doubt they'll have working 32nm parts for the market in '08-'09 if they're still busy transitioning their newest fab to 65nm in 2007. FWIW, the ITRS roadmap doesn't put 32nm production until 2013.

I don't understand why people take personal offense when I mention that Intel is ahead of AMD on process geometries; it's not an opinion, it's a fact. All I said is that I hope that AMD/IBM keep up because it's good for competition regardless of which brand of CPU is in your machine.

Well said, AMD will still be making the 65nm transition as they enter 2007, Intel is slated to having shipping processors on the 45nm process at the late 2007 timeframe, which is quite a ways off from now, and from AMD timeline you won't see 45nm from them till mid to late 2008, it takes a minimum of 2 years before you make a process transition, and AMD has generally been 2-3 Quarters behind Intel on their transistions to the next technology node.

It's not surprising people get offended at the mention of anything positive for Intel here, as there are many AMD favourable people on this site, that don't want to see any faults with AMD.

Intel will continue to have more maufacturing capacity then AMD will have.

Intel will continue to have higher income both net and gross then AMD has.

Intel will continue to have more marketing power then AMD has.

Yet Intel still cannot take the lead...quite sad and pathetic....Say more about who does a better job with the die shrink process..Apparently not Intel since their 90nm may have been rushed and we all saw it was a POS!!!!

Nice try though guys!!!!!

Maybe if they dont try to rush it out the door to win moral victories (all that they have one in the recent past) they may actually have a better product....

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Yet Intel still cannot take the lead...quite sad and pathetic....Say more about who does a better job with the die shrink process..Apparently not Intel since their 90nm may have been rushed and we all saw it was a POS!!!!

Nice try though guys!!!!!

Maybe if they dont try to rush it out the door to win moral victories (all that they have one in the recent past) they may actually have a better product....

Oh how times change, I remember when you were a rabid Intel supporter... Take a breather and realize that Intel does have the lead in process shrinks and that it means nothing to customers.

That's right, what process your CPU uses is strictly irrelevant to you, your measurements for a successful CPU are performance, price, and power. Whether AMD or Intel makes them happen on a 3 micron process or a 10nm process should make strictly no difference to you.

On the other hand, Process shrinks are essential in a semiconductor corporation's obligation to its shareholders as it reduces the marginal cost of a microprocessor. So whether you personally think that the 90nm shift was successful or is irrelevant as a Northowood die is about 131 mm^2 and a Prescott die is only about 112 mm^2. Similarly, the shrink to 65nm is likely to further reduce the die size. To give you an idea, AMD's 512KB cache Athlon64s were 144mm^2 at 130nm and were competing with the Prescott for several months, the 1MB cache Athlon54 chips were an even beefier 193mm^2! That means that for every 1MB cache Athlon chip that AMD could produce, Intel could produce nearly 2 Prescott 1MB chips!

In the end, my posts are neither to tell you to buy Intel nor to buy AMD; truth be told, I couldn't care less what company produces the CPU you or anyone else has in their rig. I am simply commenting on the technology. I'm done with this thread and the CPU forum on AT, I'm tired with putting up with a slew of posts about how company X or company Y is better every time I comment on technology.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan
Intel NEEDS to be ahead in process technology to pack in the massive cache sizes in an attempt to stay competitive. This is especially true for the Xeon, and don't forget about Itanium.

Intel is talking about 9 megs of cache PER CORE. :nuts:

What about the early computers with 64KB of memory? Do you think they saw 128GB of memory in a server as something that was likely to happen?