AM2's Orleans processor are actually bigger then Venices. As are the Windsor-512's bigger then Mancehsters.
AM2's Orleans processor are actually bigger then Venices. As are the Windsor-512's bigger then Mancehsters.
Conroe's die size is smaller then any Socket AM2 Dual Core out currently. That's argument is worthless.
Conroe is not yet on the market. The Intel product whose production cost was mentioned was the Pentium D 920.
Die size is a determinant of the materials cost of the chip. It doens't take into account other direct cost associated with a chip or the the cost of overhead that is allocated into each chip. Without knowing the cost structure of Intel or AMD, you can't really say with certainty how much a chip cost AMD/Intel to make.
Ok well firstly i got 4 gigs of http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820144184 this ram for free, so that is why i'm definently changing over to AM2, but i want to know the best time to do it. Should i buy now? or do you all really think prices will drop that much?
Well you may want to look into selling those 4GB of ECC DDR2 and getting some regular DDR2.
If your going to DDR2 anyway you mgiht actually want to wait awhile and see what Conroe will bring.
conroe kick AM2's a$$ ..... therefore if AMD wants to be competitive, they have to lower the price
Of course we don't know all the costs of each of the Semiconductor companies that is why we are hear making estimates based on freely available information. We can't do anything about the information that we don't have access to. It is a given there is gonna be some margin of error.
Well ECC is usually designed to be used with Servers and generally comes in lower speed grades compared to regualr DDR2. Hence DDR2-400 in this particular case, which is practically non-existant if your looking to buy regular DDR2 memory now.
Not to mention it's price 355US or whatever it is could get you 2GB or premium grade regular DDR2-800. It's not a wonder it's so epxensive Kingston Memory usually is very expensive compare to it's competition.
Add in wafer size differences (have AMD switched to all 30mm or are they still doing some 20mm?) and the fact that (I think) Presler dies are seperate so if one core is dead it doesn't matter as much as if they were joined, and you have very different costs.
But I'm just say that given that we don't know the costs of Intel/AMD, saying something like bigger core = more expensive chip is incorrect when comparing chips from differenct companies and MIGHT be only correct when comparing chips from within the same company.
My memory is that the newest facilities have switched over, but the older ones have not.
You are correct. Preslers are manufactured as two separate cores, then paired together. It dramatically cuts the number of duds. And therefore costs.
1. That wasn't the whole point of the question. Questar quoted: "a company spokesperson said that AMD's pricing strategy "remains unchanged" and that it remains committed to pricing its prodcuts "according to the value they deliver." I pointed out that initially it was Intel that cut their 162 mm2 920 down to HALF the price of the X2 3800. Are you contending that the 920 costs half as much to make as the X2 3800????
2. Who said ANYTHING about Conroe?
What information are you talking about?
We do know a lot of those costs...they are available on the net if you want to take the time to calculate them.
For example, the first place to look is on EDGAR for the breakdown of expenses and income in the quarterly report. It helps if you have a spreadsheet with severl years of data that you can track. (you also need to look at the revised 8Ks as well...).
Next, there's quite a few bits of those expensive analysis papers available online. Search for news stories from them like this one.
The point is that while figuring out how much each chip costs exactly is not possible, getting it withing a few dollars is...we can also determine what the relative costs are going forward.
That may be true (or it may not, I really have no idea), but how many people on this board who are comparing the cost of AMD chips to Intel chips based on die size have done that?
Again, I really don't know who is spending less to make chips, I'm just that basing this on die size alone is not accurate at all.
Not accurate, but close. The wafer is the most expensive non-fixed cost of the chip.
There certainly is a bit of leeway, but it's still a decent rule of thumb.
I think that Intel's trying to clear out all of their Netburst chips so that they can start making a huge supply of new chips.
And AM2 is so cheap because AMD is trying to start a price war.
Nope that is not what I am claiming, you have to keep in mind that yielding 2x81mm2 is not the same as the 147mm2 and 183mm2 of the X2 3800+.
1/2 the price of 3800+? You are exagerating the price difference. They cut their Pentium D 920 down to about 2/3 of the price of the X2 3800+ not 1/2. It's only since Early June that Intel has reduce the pricing of it's Pentium D 920 and 930 to 3/5 of the X2 3800+.
It's hard to say how costly it is to make a Manchester vs a Presler due to the fact they utilize difference processes, AMD's process is 1 layer thicker as well as having SOI embedded. 1 is a Monolithic implementation and the other is Dual Die.
2/3 I would think certainly is doable adding in the additonal savings of 300mm wafer processing, double die implementation, lack of SOI, and a layer thinner.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2734
Conroe is dicussed because the topic is about AM2, and Conroe will be competing against AM2 Dual Cores.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 369
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter