Now AMD has Better architecture manufacturing process. Watch for upcoming processors.

Seems to be great news for AMD as it didn't as if they were going to hit 45 NM until the end of 2007 or early 2008. I really hope these chips can make a run at penryn but I won't hold my breath

So what does that mean for Intel's 2 year lead?

i think that it is supposed to say that they will be commercially available by mid of 2008 not 2007.

how much memory are they putting on die? This sounds like they could be putting from 32-64 mb of ram cache on die, does anyone have numbers?

intel has 8mb on one of their chips.

That's good. Now, if they could keep the promise of ramping the 45nm chips in 2007 then it would really be excellent!

Great "reporting"! Funny how noone cared to comment on what working meant? Have they actually packaged a chip and booted a computer? What kind of speed, power consumption does it have compared to 65nm? What is the combined "SRAM and logic"? Is this an ACTUAL chip (K8, K10?) or is it a test structure?

BTW - there are working 32nm die out there too - that doesn't mean it is ready for production soon though.

Hmm... Well great news, especially for us - users, the CPU market got some nice push so that the prices will have to be reviewed and we will win. I always loved Intel, as AMD was always trying to catch Intel with cheap and good processors, recently I bought a second-hand AMD Athlon64 based laptop and I got suprised - they are really fast :) Nice job, AMD, Intel will be forced to cut the prices, this means I will buy Intel cheaper :))

Exactly what it says, AMD just had to put it back in Intel's face when they thought they had such a great "lead"...(2 yrs..c'mon)Thumbs up again to AMD who is always giving intel a hard time.

me: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31974/118/
me: f'ing AMD
me: Intel talking all his shit and AMD's all "here bitch, keep talking."
friend: LOL
friend: I just thought that

... expected to be commercially available by mid of 2007. -> It should be mid of 2008, not 7.

And yes I belive in AMD !

n/t.

Well it seem that AMD is only 4 months behind Intel. We will see how it performs next to Penyn.

Do you mean commercially available by mid 2008?

Check your dates!

"First 45 nm processors are expected to be commercially available by mid of 2007."
Should read "...mid of 2008."

Just goes to show how far the other company will go to ruin the reputation of their competitors. I'll admit, AMD is definitely behind the game in the market right now but nothing new. The two companies have been bouncing back and forth for years. Which is a good thing; it keeps the two advancing technology and keeps the price market competitive...

AMD's 45nm process will not be anything like Intel's 45nm process. Intel has made a great breakthrough in process development by using halfnium and shrinking both the inter lattice distance and the feature size. AMD's process will only be a lattice shrink which will provide some additional shrinkage for the overall size of the die, but no speed or power improvements. Intel is at least 2 years ahead of AMD, Intel was being kind in stating the distance between the two...

Andy

AMD's 45nm process won't be anything like Intel's 45nm process. Intel will provide both inter lattice and feature size shrinks and AMD's process will only provide lattice shrinks. Intel will provide additional size, speed and power advantages and AMD will provide size advantages. Intel was kind when it said it was 2 years ahead of AMD.

I'm guessing first 45nm processors are expected to be commercially available in mid 2008 instead of 2007 -- since the first structures are not until end of 2007.

It seems that when these chips come out they'll be fast. This is AMD's next next gen silicon and they're demonstrating they can make it. Once again I'll say they better hurry the hell up and get their new chips out soon. Its sad they're wrestling with their graphics division's problems as well. ATI is holding them back so much its sickening.

We are kicking Intel's ass - and getting rich in the process !

Well, at least we're getting rich.

Actually, at least I'm getting rich.

Suing and Puking-From-My-Gut And Gestapo Raids At Dawn,
Hector

Looks like AMDs strategy is going to be skipping the 65nm and trying to "head em off at the pass" as it were.

I wouldnt say that AMD has better "architecture manufacturing process" (yet). This article reports very little on AMD's achievements on 45nm process. What about power comsumption?

in 45nm, the leakage current between gate terminal is not negligible anymore. Intel found a material (more like a combination of some materials) to be a high-k material to replace current gate oxide layer. Intel also reported that they are lucky to have found the exact material they were looking for, for quite sometime and other companies might not find it for at least a couple of process technology to come.

Bottom line, maybe AMD has better solution. Maybe AMD has found that "secret material" of Intel. This is going to be INTERESTING.

If AMD can release 45nm chips into the PC CPU market before the end of 2007 then this is very good news indeed. I hadn't heard of this and considering they only just released 65nm and haven't even fully converted their whole line to that yet I'm surprised to hear this. I hope it's true.

This is great news for AMD. With Intel already going to release their 45nm parts, this should have AMD Catching up in process size. Does this mean that AMD will skip 65nm?

This is good news indeed! It is good for the consumer if AMD can survive and beat intel. I am no fanboy of either company. I just want the best bang for the buck and right now that is intel. Hopefully AMD can change this around.

Jeffro,

it's not as though these are actual AMD K8 or K10 CPUs being showed off-- just "chips, of some undefined type, that work". So it may be a while before we see anything that can be reasonably compared to Penryn.

It was supposed to say mid-2008. It is corrected.

Well this is good news. I didn't think that AMD would come out with 45nm till the end of 2008 at the earliest. I wonder if they can produce chips for us to have a look at?
Might not be over for AMD after all!

To Steve --

Intel is claiming 2 year lead over incorporating high-K/MG... not the node transistion.

Jack

If I remember correctly, AMD's SOI processing technology is from IBM. If it is indeed IBM vs. Intel, I wouldn't say Intel have any advantage. (This theory actually sounds plausible as IBM have an old score to settle with Intel and selling their advance technology to AMD also make sense as Intel don't need to buy from IBM)

For you guys thinking this is a CPU waffer, it's not. It's a waffer of to demonstrate the 45nm capabilities. Think of it as the first step. Build something simple on an advanced process. Then when that process works "right", you advance to applying a complex build (aka CPU) to said process.

But don't get me wrong. This is GREAT news for AMD. Can't wait to see those 45-based CPUs next year. Time to shut the fat cow up (read: Intel). :)

all you intel bum sniffers make me laugh, im no fanboy of amd but i do believe in there products and they also price everything respectfully, it was good when amd kicked the 64-bit out the door intel were so in shock it took them almost 4 years to get a surpasing product. its funny when people switch sides your a total joke, i bet you intel lovers have been using amd's 64bit cpus for the last few years until intel actually made something worth paying for. what you have to remember is that if amd go and intel has no competition the prices will go back through the roof because intel only cares about the money, not the customer. evryone forgets amd has only slipped behind becuase of the amd/ati merge, when amd get back into gear we will see some great products.

Having a fully functional 45nm now means alot for 08. I am not foolish enough to hold my breath for early release but it does mean that they could get back on schedule. Emphasis on could.

Ummm no... http://www.betanews.com/articl..._to=565171
Read the bottom of the last page. AMD has something similar to Intel's hafnium so yeah no. Intel is not as far ahead as they would like you to believe. Intel is just using wishful thinking which if they actually think this is likely not going to be good for them in the long run.

This kind of showing isn't exactly a working CPU demonstration. Intel went public with working SRAM and logic chips at the 45nm node back on 25 Jan 2006, which makes them over 15 months ahead on 45nm. Considering Intel is now 5-6 months away from releasing Penryn, if AMD follows the same pace, we're looking at at least 20 months before we have availability of 45nm AMD CPUs. This puts 45nm pretty squarely two years back from AMD's 65nm launch.

I shake my head at all those who got so excited to say that AMD has now caught up to Intel since they have working 45nm chips as well. I would not be surprised to see Intel pull out working 32nm SRAM in Q1, '08.

"I shake my head at all those who got so excited to say that AMD has now caught up to Intel since they have working 45nm chips as well. I would not be surprised to see Intel pull out working 32nm SRAM in Q1, '08."

The good news is now that they have it They hae a year to refine it to meet the release deadline. Thats the really good news here. Not the alledged fully funtioning chip ,but, the year to refine it.

I am tired of guys like intel fan boys saying .. intel is the best... f*ck the rest. Well i have an intel based pc. Pentium 4 D 820 @3.4 ghz OC. so what? How many factoryes have AMD and how many have intel?It's like a battle between David and Goliath. A couple of years David had won.But think about it.A firm with only 4 or 5 factoryes to beat a 25 factoryes firm it's a big shame. Thumb up for AMD because they are fighting for us.The end user guys wich would want a cheap pc but with big performance.What about AMD would be broke?Intel would raise scores and we're f*cked. So why mock AMD? For an ant to beat a bee is a big thing.Even if they are a little behind i believe they will find something new wich would renew the battle for best CPU.Like first memory integrated controller in cpu i think they will find something again.Think pink

It’s certainly amusing reading this AMD / Intel bantering. How much stock should one place in a manufacturing process, considering AMD, at 90nm, was competing with (and oftentimes besting) Pentiums at 65nm – for years? Moreover, even to this date, in the server sector, AMD’s dual-core, 90nm-based Opteron 2- and 4-way server solutions scale more linearly than (and oftentimes outperform) Conroe-based Xeon (65nm) processors.

Yes, Penryn will be out long before Shanghai. But, will this be a battle of manufacturing processes or architectures? Clearly the latter… as Penryn will be pushing to find a happy low-TDP and high-MHZ medium – just to remain competitive with K10 (a 65nm technology).

So what is the 65/45nm fuss about?

Intel absolutely MUST lead with manufacturing processes to maximize its cache sizes – and overcome its Achilles heal, the FSB – in order to compete with or overcome AMD

AMD absolutely MUST continually refine its manufacturing processes and take full advantage of its IMC – to overcome its smaller cache – in order to compete with or overcome Intel

Continued below…

Who wins?

Both – as leapfrogging between the two manufacturers has been ongoing for years.

Here’s the issue Intel is facing:
Like it or not, AMD processors – both current and upcoming – scale more linearly when involving additional cores, than Intel processors in almost all applications or benchmarks. Even when AMD is slower overall (as with the K8 vs. C2D), when comparing the advantage of additional cores, gains are more linear with K8 with each additional core than with C2D. Example – run two simultaneous instances of 1M SuperPi with a C2D and compare the completion times to a single instance of 1M SuperPi. Typically a C2D will take approximately 16-18 percent longer to complete two simultaneous instances of 1M SuperPi than a single instance of 1M SuperPi. While an x2 K8 will typically take only 3-4 percent longer.

Yes, one can argue that it doesn’t really matter because C2D taking 16-18 percent longer is still faster than anything AMD K8s can accomplish with only 1 instance of SuperPi. However, what happens when the architecture no longer has the luxury of having such an IPC advantage – as will be the case when K10 is released? Intel will absolutely fall behind AMD in terms of multiple core scaling.

Here’s what AMD is facing:
Intel will continue to have a scaling disadvantage until it implements an IMC. When this happens, AMD will be forced to match or surpass Intel’s leadership in manufacturing process miniaturization, as it will no longer have an exclusive technology.

But, until then this 65/45nm debate is moot – as it is not comparable across the two manufactures’ implementations. 65nm K10s will blast past any 65nm Conroe-based clock-for-clock (as did Conroe over K8) and 45nm Penryns will try and even things out (or take the lead) with faster core and FSB clocks and additional cache.

If AMD bought ATI.. why they didn't tried to use ati radeon technology?Such as memory controller from graphic card from x1950 wich is a beast in terms of technology.If they will use the technology from IGP to make a CPU they will clearely beat out any CPU on the market.Some time i heard rumours like fusion between CPU and GPU in one thing to make both.Well... desperate times need desperate actions.No need to say that ati based gpu are the fastest processors build.They have the technology now.so why aren't they using it?

at the rate they are bringing out 45nm they will beat themselves bringing out 65nm products.

I agree, AMD has a solid multi-core scaling solution already in place, if Intel would get off of it's butt and fight back with similar technology it would have a fighting chance, but that has been the story all along, they wouldn't do DDR, they wouldn't do 64-bit, they won't have an on-chip controller.

Hmm, the GREAT Karnak has a letter, (hold to forehead), What is a $500 device that twiddles its thumbs 30% of the time? (open the letter) An Intel processor, yes folks the shiny new Cadillac with 4MB of cache is perfect for the processor on the go with a high latency to system RAM and a 30% cache miss penalty, be sure and thank your Lvl 2 cache on the way out, but don't wait in line for the FSB to come around, that ride is backed up around the block.

I think that if AMD had its' integrated CPU/GPU product the UMPC market would have really taken off, at 1/2 the price and twice the battery life and processing power we could have dual-core 400-1Ghz scaling processors running at .8 volt or less with actual usable Graphics acceleration. They might still pull that off, I am rooting for them. If they could challenge the Thin/light/duarable VIA solutions with actual processing power integrated into a single core it would be so nice (not to mention with a single chip chipset and DDR3 we could easily have a laptop that could do some casual gaming and weigh 2 LBS, I want a new Toshiba Libretto).

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6301896.html
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060125comp.htm

just amd soi 200mm wafer vs. intc 300mm wafer

LOL...it's like AMD perfected their 64nm stepping and now they are jumping on 45nm:) here is a piece of ADVICE to AMD, you cannot sell TALK and HOT air, PLZZZZ, AMD...SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

while AMDs empty talk impresses some folks, i think in reality their propaganda department is as good as FOX news. here is my question...AMD...where is Barcelona?

It's 65 nm not 64 nm and what you think is propaganda actually is news on Fox news. The real propaganda, which actually is propaganda, has been coming from Intel the last 4 years, like the Pentium 4 is going to reach 10 Ghz, it couldn't make it to 4, for example. And then there was Prescott, the 90 nm Pentium 4, that was supposed to allow the Pentium 4 to scale "even higher" as was released by Intel and the Intel fan boys were giddy about. All it did was make it run hotter (talking about HOT AIR) and use more energy and scaled worse than the 130 nm version it replaced. So it CLEARLY wasn't ready for release and it just exacerbated an already flawed design. That is how desperate Intel was to try to beat the processor, the Athlon 64, from a company that is quarter the size that Intel is. But guess what, I bet you still bought it didn't you, Baha. And you thought it was a great processor when the market clearly showed by it's decreasing market share, that it was not a great processor, but just huge propaganda.

no, there is too little time, let me sum up

the process is very simple, a new process/architecture comes out, and someone takes the price/performance crown, then a price war levels it out again. right now price/performance is relatively equal per price segment, but intel holds the performance lead past amd's top dog. This will change as it always has.
I totally understand that each person has their preference, but don't fool yourself. I'm quoting enz0 as saying AMD is "fighting for us" and root as saying "intel only cares about the money." Make no mistake about it, no corporation really cares about anything but the bottom line. The only reason AMD had been priced cheaper than intel all these years is simply because intel typically had a huge performance lead. That all changed a few years ago and it showed by AMD taking market share. If either side dominates the market, prices will go up, AMD would gladly screw you out of your money just as easily as intel.

the hype is going to run rampant on both sides of the fence. Both sides will say they have the best processor and only choose to look at certain aspects of the whole. For instance, coming out with a 64 bit processor is great, but both companies now support it and i'm still using 32 bit windows without feeling i'm missing something. Was it really that fantastic that AMD beat it to market? Intel has the fastest chip, but on a budget and the current price war, are they really that much better? It's ALL hype. Finding an unbiased opinion is pretty hard. I just ask that you realize the two companies really aren't that different, they're both using shady means to fool you into thinking each is the best.

Dear redraider,

my apology for typo (64nm) and thanks for correcting it.
Blah, Blah, Blah....please wake up and smell the coffee! While you are bringing up tale of 2 years ago, reality has moved on rapidly in technology world. Yes, it's true that Intel was caught flat footed a while back but as we can see, Intel has quietly come back with a vengeance and completely has dominated the CPU market with it's superior technology while AMD has done nothing but exhibiting it's dog and pony show! Yes, AMD has been talking about their road map, which so far, it has amounted to nothing more than hollow talk and day dreaming!

The absolute incompetence of Intel over the past few years was amazing. Yes, they've finally managed to correct things, but Intel is a huge company, don't assume that AMD can afford the same mistakes. That's why I believe the people who say that AMD will eventually retake the performance lead are being too complacent in that assumption.

AMD cannot afford to make any more mistakes past this point. The company used up its cash reserves to buy up ATI and is already loaded with debt. Intel is relatively debt free. AMD faces the problem that financing will become more expensive if it starts to falter past this point. With margins as low as they are, that would cause a vicious circle where AMD wouldn't be able to invest in R&D, causing even greater losses in market share and increasing financing costs even more.

AMD is at a critical juncture. Don't make the mistake that AMD can afford to be as incompetent as Intel has been in the past. I think Intel could afford to freeze all R&D and new product releases for two years and still have the resources to come back two years from now. Intel is simply so huge and so free of debt that it could afford to basically waste another two years doing nothing and still come back. All those monopoly years gave Intel a huge brand recognition (now you know why Intel spent so much money on the "Intel Inside" campaign) that most consumers still prefer Intel REGARDLESS of actual performance vs. AMD. From now on, AMD must be perfect while Intel still can get away with incompetence. That's where we are today.

Or more over, it shows how AMD can really push FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt).

Intel announced this SAME wafer in January 2006 (yes with fully functional SRAM with Logic) meaning that AMD are indeed behind at least 5 Quarters. Not only this, but there has been no mention by AMD that their (or should I say AMD's and IBM's) 45nm uses advanced transiter features, like Intel's high-k metal gate, so it will be interesting to see if there is actually any improvement or even performance enhancements versus Intel impending 45nm Chips (2H 2007 I believe).

If we look at Intel's announcement all the way back in January 2006, they released SRAM array-size and cell-size. Did AMD do this? No.

Until AMD release all this information without the safety of NDA I don't think the field should be too excited.

Intel's announcement: http://www.intel.com/pressroom...25comp.htm

Now intel is cheaper...

People seem to have forgotton that the Athlon XP also had a larger process size and lower clock speed than comparable Intels, but it still preformed (in general) about as well as or a little better than the comparable Pentium 4s, so you have to keep in mind that it is very hard to tell how a processor will perform just from specs and features, without actual testing.

Everyone should be happy about this rivailry going on. I mean seriously it is pushing both companies to build the next big thing. A great thing for consumers.

After reading a few of these posts it is amazing how no one really has a new thing to say. There are about 20 different posts about a "typo". Get over yourselves and get your own opinion!