Sentential
Senior member
- Feb 28, 2005
- 677
- 0
- 0
The overall average clock speed for AMD's 130nm design is aprox 2.5ghz and for 90nm it is about 2.7Originally posted by: sonoran
Sentential, I had noticed that slide as well, but where did the blue lines for clock speed come from? As far as I'm aware they're not there on the original. If you made them up, I'm curious as to what your reasoning was?Originally posted by: Sentential
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v180/Sentential/1aprox.jpg
If 2 blocks are 500mhz. This becomes very bad....Its not the top end, but the spread. On 90nm there are cores that cannot even run at 2.8ghz. This is a sign of a serious yeild issue.
I drew the lines based on what we know these cores are currentally capable of. If you look at the data AMD provides my information falls in line with theirs. Even without them it paints a poor picture of the production yeilds. If you look at the original post I said such.Originally posted by: Duvie
Its not there are placed on there with like Paintshop....I will try to find the original.....
further look the chart and whee they drew lines would make no sense..Also figure where each line began speed wise and you can figure approx what the lines may be...BUt without the orig. it would be ASSuming which Sentential is good at....He alswys spreads INFOP (I use lightly) like this here...
I agree wholly. I would never say that anything from Intel could come anywhere close to an X2 in peformance. This thread was specificallly aimed at whether they could make them in mass quantity.Originally posted by: MDmeBOTTOM LINE: it doesn't really matter if the P-D's and EE's are available. cause the X2 beats them anyway which way you look at it.
In addition I would like to say that Intel is having the same exact issue. Infact AFAIK they do not plan to make more than 500,000 Pentium Ds this year. Which compared to their normal day-to-day buisness, makes it even worse than AMD's situation.
Originally posted by: Lonyo
"Mature yeilds" is simply a marker of where they can produce enough chips to supply their target demands. For AMD they did infact meet those MUCH more quickly than they did with 130nm. Why? Because they reduced the die size of Newcastle via Winchester and others by litererly half.Originally posted by: DuvieIt shows AMD reaching mature yields very quickly with 90nm.
Also, WHY would AMD release higher speed processors? Serious question, why release higher speeds?
Higher speeds obviously mean lower yields on the higher speed chips, and since there's no market pressure to release higher speed chips, why should they lower their yields?
Whatever happens, 2.8GHz chips are going to be harder to produce than 2.6GHz or 2.4GHz chips, and since Intel can't compete at current speeds, why would AMD do that to themselves?
It has nothing to do with the ratio of dead vs live chips. They can crank out so many that the ratio of live to dead chips on small cores like Winchester and Sandiego that it doesnt matter.
However since die-size is a real issue on the X2s this becomes a problem where it wasnt before on the other cores. Now every die matters and low yeild rates on a large chip become a serious problem.
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Sentential they dont need 3Ghz.
You are absolutly right. They dont need 3ghz....right now. However if Cedar Mill and Presler are half as good as Intel says they are, AMD *needs* to scale these A64s as high as they possibly can, because very very soon Intel will have a solution to their clock speed problem.
It is going to be very tough for current X2s to be able to compete with a 4ghz Presler with 4MB of cahce. Especially if they give them Hyperthreading like they claim to do. In addition they will be drastically cheaper than their AMD counterparts much like Pentium D is now.
The only thing AMD has going for it now is true and raw peformance. By god they have to milk it for all its worth while they can. Their .65nm process is almost a year behind Intel's. THAT could prove to be disasterous.