Friday, January 27, 2006

This fool is an idiot

Motley Fool Jack Uldrich is hyping up INTEL's future 45nm process here, on the news that INTEL made SRAM on it. You may ask why he is not hyping INTEL's flasgship 65nm that much. INTEL barely started doing 65nm.

The sad truth is, even though INTEL has a lead in 65nm process, AMD's 90nm is far better than INTEL's 65nm in terms of performance and power consumption. The 65nm Pentium D Presler and Yonah showed near zero improvement on power consumption and clockspeed over INTEL's 90nm. The 65nm Pentium D Presler is still spewing out 170 watts and running at 3.4GHZ, and the Yonah is at 1.7GHZ. Both are no match to AMD's current processors built on 90nm with DSLSSOI.

If we look further into 4Q06, the INTEL 65nm Merom is having heat problems and can't be faster than 2.33GHZ. So much for the faster switching speed hyped by Jack Uldrich the fool.

INTEL has started doing 65nm for some products but will remain mostly 90nm for months to come. With the primitive copy-exact methodology, it takes a long time for INTEL to adjust all those FABs. AMD's 65nm starts in 2H06. Who will switch to 100% 65nm first? It's hard to say, because AMD CEO said with its advanced APM3.0, when AMD starts 65nm, it will be at mature yield and switch can happen very fast.

INTEL's 65nm is smaller on feature size, but its process is the simple and cheap Strained Silicon. AMD's expensive and complex DSLSSOI (Dual Stress Linear Strained Silicon On Insulator) provides 30% performance advantage over SS.

I do agree with the fool that a smaller INTEL is better for everyone.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

So whats your perspective on this, because as i see it, amd hasn't even started into the 65nm market and to say that they will do better than what intel has done so far without knowing is taking a shot in the dark. Or you could just have it out for intel, and think amd is better. I tend to agree, I like amd's processors better, but it always seems like they are behind on Intel...

12:25 PM, January 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We can say the same thing about Jack...

Maybe he just made up an article that didn't have any real beef to it other then Intel has done something that hasn't actually been put into the market and won't for 2 years. Touting an untested product or the facts of a currently working product...which is better?

Personally I think Intel could do well...unless they have another Itanic. Of course people are touting the renewed enthusiasm in the 2nd coming of Itanium...but I guess you can go long as Jack says with Intel...2 years for 45nm and 4 years for Itanium 2...or AMD 64 now. Your pick...

1:08 PM, January 27, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Unlike the Fool, I am not hyping any thing we haven't seen yet. I compared INTEL's 65nm parts and AMD's 90nm parts and found AMD's 90nm better than INTEL's 65nm. I said nothing about the performance and power characteristics of AMD's 65nm parts.

1:24 PM, January 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man you are so AMD blind its nuts. If the Intel's 65nm CPU's are not one ounce faster....they still make more money because each wafer will produce more CPU's.

Its not about bleading edge speed anymore. For every overclocking, benchmarking, speed freek there are thousands of people that just want a PC.

You predictions will fail....especially the laptop one.

64bit is a gaint "SO WHAT"!!! Dual core will implemented by applications way faster than 64bit versions.

10:40 PM, January 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharokou you ignorance is amazing. By pretending to be an expert - you should know that the power consumption is also dependent on such factors as number of transistors on die or chip operating frequency. Next time before you start writing bullshit comparing AMD's/Intel manufacturing processes make your own homework and compare those two factors. If you are courious why Intel's chips consume more energy than AMD's the answer is simple, cause Intel's chips have more transistors on die and operate using higher frequency. P4 operation is less efficient - it needs to execute more microoperations (higher frequency) to achieve the same result as lower clocked AMD chip: more work needs to be done so Intel's chip consumes more energy. Thats simple.

6:03 AM, January 29, 2006  
Anonymous George said...

But The Athlons were haveing more preformace with less cache

8:04 AM, May 03, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home