1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

90nm Bartons and A64 delays ?

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by Roger Squires, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. Roger Squires, Aug 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Roger Squires

    Ed Guest

    It sure would be nice to see AMD release a Socket-A 3800+ or 4000+ (Nf2
    400 FSB compatible) CPU next year.

    Ed, Aug 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Roger Squires

    Ben Pope Guest

    Indeed, a die shrink on the Barton core would be sweet - I wonder what the
    maximum clock would be. Aren't they using FDSOI on the 90nm process too?
    Should help with the cooling... even I might be able to get one below 50!

    Ben Pope, Aug 28, 2003

  4. I disagree with the speculation that there is some 'problem'
    with the Hammer line.

    AMD finally has a CPU that people are willing and eager to
    pay huge prices for.

    They NEED to keep the prices on it high for as long as possible.

    This means they NEED to keep the XP line advancing for a while,
    and the ONLY way they'll do that is it to move to 90nm.

    In addition to more speed, this will also reduce the heat the chips produce,
    making everyone happy.

    To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

    Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

    It's your SIG, say what you want to say....
    Never anonymous Bud, Aug 28, 2003
  5. Roger Squires

    Stacey Guest

    Key word is if. They have to be able to beat the P4 running 32 bit apps to
    be interesting to mainstream buyers until 64 bit OS's and apps are also
    mainstream. I'm not surprised to see them do a shrink on the XP and try to
    get back in the game. Actually glad to see it and hope the 64 bit apps/OS's
    get sorted out before they try to "flood the market" with 64 bit chips. To
    put a bunch out before the software is ready would be a bad move.
    Stacey, Aug 29, 2003
  6. Roger Squires

    Stacey Guest

    Love to hear what people would say if Intel was doing things to keep it's
    chip prices as high as possible for as long as possible. Actually I think I
    have heard what people say. Nevermind....
    Stacey, Aug 29, 2003
  7. If the K7 is a miracle, then what would you call the Intel P6,
    introduced in the Pentium Pro in November 1995, and as the Pentium III,
    still in production? Seven years and still relevant.
    Richard Krehbiel, Aug 29, 2003
  8. Roger Squires

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    I don't think anyone is worried that Intel isn't capable of keeping
    prices high themselves. :)

    Yousuf Khan
    Yousuf Khan, Aug 29, 2003
  9. Roger Squires

    Tony Hill Guest

    Haha, I like how the Overclockers website is claiming that this is not
    only news, but somehow a HUGE story! What a joke!

    This has been on AMD's roadmap for quite some time now, it was hardly
    a secret to anyone, and definitely not "news". Geez, after reading a
    few of the articles on the website, it is quite apparent that these
    people are completely clueless when it comes to the workings of
    processor manufacturing!

    Here's a hint for any overclockers.com authors that might read this:

    AMD produced K6 chips on a 180nm fab process after the Athlon came out
    Intel produces PIII chips on a 130nm fab process after the P4
    AMD will produce AthlonXP chips on a 90nm fab processor after the
    Athlon64 comes out. Nothing new here, no surprises.
    Tony Hill, Aug 30, 2003
  10. Roger Squires

    Tony Hill Guest

    First chips shipped in mid-'99. 5+ years is a decent lifespan for a
    CPU, but nothing extraordinary. Intel's P6 core lasted for a good 7
    years of production (first introduced in the PentiumPro in 1995, last
    produced as Celeron chips in 2002 and maybe even into the start of
    2003). Before that the Pentium core lasted about 6 years (1993
    through to early 1999), though the last year was almost entirely as a
    mobile processor.
    Don't hold your breath on the Athlon64 being cheap. It will probably
    be slightly cheaper than a comparable P4, but motherboards will be
    more expensive, so system cost will probably be pretty similar or
    possibly even in the P4's favor.

    You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the AthlonXP replacing
    the Duron, though that's already happened at least 6 months ago, at
    least in North America and western Europe. The Duron is essentially
    dead in these markets, and has been for some time. It apparently
    recently been revived for some developing markets (timed rather
    closely to AMD's announcement that they will actively pursue the
    Chinese market), but for most of the world, the AthlonXP is already
    the low-cost chip in AMD's line-up. Unfortunately for AMD, until
    quite recently it was also their ONLY chip, which is part of the
    reason why AMD has bled a bit of red ink for the past little while.
    Tony Hill, Aug 30, 2003
  11. Roger Squires

    Tony Hill Guest

    The AthlonXP chips will be desktop chips for at least a little while,
    AMD needs them to compete with the Celeron and lower speed P4's if
    nothing else. The Athlon64 will, at least initially, be a rather
    pricy chip for AMD to produce, so they can't go around selling them
    for $50/chip, and that is all that OEMs are willing to pay for a lot
    of processors these days.

    It is perhaps rather interesting that AMD is planning on bringing out
    a mobile Athlon64 part at the exact same time as they release a
    desktop part. This is something that neither AMD or Intel have ever
    done before, and is perhaps telling of the direction that the industry
    is headed. The Athlon core will probably hang around in mobile parts
    for the exact same reason as why it will stick around for desktop
    parts, but it doesn't seem like AMD will NEED it around as a mobile
    part like they did with the K6-2+/K6-III+.
    If such chips really do end up existing (I personally don't see it as
    being a move that is at all useful/worthwhile), I'd be almost certain
    that they will be Athlon64 chips with 64-bit functionality disabled.
    Moving the AthlonXP to socket754 would require a fair bit of redesign
    which makes even less sense than crippling Athlon64 chips.

    My personal guess, Athlon64 chips will ship from some OEMs with 64-bit
    support disabled in the bios by default. Put them in a board with a
    BIOS that enables 64-bit operating and they'll work just fine. Of
    course, I have been wrong in the past.
    Tony Hill, Aug 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.