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.

AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Yousuf Khan, Dec 10, 2008.

  1. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Interesting the AMD 45nm technology does not yet include High-K & Metal
    Gates (HKMG), yet it uses 15-30% less power. Of course AMD does use SOI,
    which Intel doesn't. So it looks like currently SOI utilizes power
    better than HKMG, but AMD also plans to use HKMG in later 45nm revision.

    Yousuf Khan

    Under the Hood: AMD's Shanghai marks move to 45-nm node
    Yousuf Khan, Dec 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest



    Robert Myers, Dec 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    I remember you. You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact.
    Good time to move the US. The US needs more people with unjustified
    self-confidence. It's done such good things for the world economy.

    Robert Myers, Dec 16, 2008
  4. I remember you. You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact.
    Good time to move the US. The US needs more people with unjustified
    self-confidence. It's done such good things for the world economy.[/QUOTE]

    Speaking of unjustified self-confidence ... go look in a mirror.
    You do not have any idea of how insulting you often are,
    and thereby prove yourself a troll.

    -- Robert
    Robert Redelmeier, Dec 16, 2008
  5. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    That's unusually sloppy for you, Robert. Politeness, consideration
    for others, or even an accurate self-image in interpersonal terms have
    nothing to do with being right or wrong.

    I have no unjustified self-confidence around people like you or the
    other guy who works for people who are experts in risk management,
    "expertise" of the kind that has nearly brought the world financial
    order to its knees.

    It's been interesting to watch the reactions of those burned in
    Madoff's Ponzi scheme. They all come down to, "He didn't seem like
    the sort," or "He knew all the right people."

    Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal cues have
    nothing to do with being right or wrong. There is right, wrong, and
    don't know, the last of which is grotesquely underutizlized. A fraud
    who is nice is still a fraud.

    Robert Myers, Dec 16, 2008
  6. Yousuf Khan

    Del Cecchi` Guest

    The Madoff affair has been quite interesting to watch. One aspect is
    the evolution... did it start out legitimate and evolve over time to a
    fraud, or was it a fraud from the beginning? I have read plausible
    speculation that it was the former.

    And how he didn't get caught? Another article speculated that many
    thought he was crooked and "front running" his market making operation.
    So the Wall Street types wanted to get in on it.

    And the "brightest guys in the room" almost wrecked the financial system
    before this, with LTCM.

    Del Cecchi`, Dec 17, 2008
  7. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    I'm sure that many frauds start out with someone thinking that they
    are taking a temporary measure that they will later be able to cover.
    Lawyers holding funds in trust think of the funds as a line of credit,
    for example.

    I think that, ultimately, the calculations are little more than a
    prop. The margins are so thin that just the tiniest bit of, say,
    front-running or an unexposed conflict of interest (wanting to get in
    on the scam without admitting to knowing about it) can change

    Robert Myers, Dec 17, 2008
  8. Yes ... to the advantage of the scam. Margins means levearage
    works small advantages into large profits. The problem is like
    in mountaineering on the backside -- how can you climb down?

    -- Robert R
    Robert Redelmeier, Dec 17, 2008
  9. You are confusing politics for science. Apart from IQ, nothing you
    said about Sebastian has any scientific proveability or relevance.
    Your statement was political, and must be judged as such.
    Why do you equate us? I pointed you to Nassim Taleb's
    "Black Swans" back in May. You are ignoring data.
    Then why do you invoke them against Sebastian?

    -- Robert R
    Robert Redelmeier, Dec 17, 2008
  10. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    You both have chosen to make it personal. So be it. It is personal.
    Nothing you can say or do at this point will make it otherwise. If
    you want to continue with your personal attacks, be so pleased to do
    it if you wish. If I respond in kind, congratulate yourself on how
    thoroughly you have pushed my buttons, but don't bother criticizing or
    correcting. I don't care what you think, and it takes every scrap of
    restraint I possess not to say what I really think.

    Robert Myers, Dec 17, 2008
  11. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    You made one of the more memorably preposterous claims in my memory of
    reading Usenet. Subsequent events have made the preposterousness of
    your claim even more obvious. If you're going to spend the rest of
    your time on Usenet trying to repair your damaged ego, there's no
    real reason for me to respond to you.

    If anyone should be barking, it would be the OP, because it was his
    post that I mocked. You're not properly involved at all.

    Robert Myers, Dec 19, 2008
  12. Such ad-hominem is exactly what obliges me (and perhaps others) to
    intercede. Irrespective of their own skills and right to respond,
    no-one can defend themselves on equal terms against ad-hominem.
    However correct, their arguments can be seen as self-serving.
    I have even defended you when I didn't see you as the aggressor.
    as above, this makes Sebastians intercission entirely
    appropriate. As was mine when you mocked him.

    I have explained this before and do not expect you to understand
    this time either. However, you are not the only reader on USENET.
    You may correctly infer that I value the opinion of an unknown
    anonymous lurker well above yours. Your reasoning has given me
    no reason to value it. My choice. But does not free me from
    the moral obligation to defend others against ad-hominem.

    -- Robert R
    Robert Redelmeier, Dec 19, 2008
  13. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    As I said some time ago, I really have no use for you. Go pick a
    fight with someone else.

    I shall continue to mock AMD boosterism until AMD finally becomes a
    subsidiary of IBM.

    Robert Myers, Dec 19, 2008
  14. Yousuf Khan

    krw Guest

    Then why do you bother to respond, troll?
    No one cares, troll.
    krw, Dec 20, 2008
  15. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    If you don't care, long-term bully, why do you bother?

    I can't say it of Robert, but I can say it of you. I've watched you
    patronize, demean, and bully for years, and not just me by a long

    As I was out shoveling snow, in fact, I was thinking of none other
    than *you* and all the meaningful discussions of prefetch we might
    have had but for your Kieth-knows-everything-because-he's-been-doing-
    it-at-IBM-since-197whatever presence, and, according to your all-
    knowing IBM wisdom, prefetching doesn't work. Prefetch engines, in
    fact, are a big part of i7, memory controller on the die or not, but I
    wouldn't even bother trying to discuss it with you around, because,
    just as with Robert, it's not about technology. It's about your ego.
    Oh, and, of course, your moral superiority.
    Robert Myers, Dec 20, 2008
  16. Yousuf Khan

    krw Guest

    No bother, troll.
    You deserve every bit of grief you get, troll. You are without a
    doubt the biggest ass on the Usenet.
    Have fun with your snow, troll.
    krw, Dec 20, 2008
  17. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    Bullies always say that: he/she asked for it. The purely unself-
    conscious state of your nastiness and self-righteousness is a wonder
    to behold.
    Robert Myers, Dec 20, 2008
  18. Then why bother replying to me?
    I do not consider this a fight. Revealing that you do.
    While being an Intel booster of equal if not greater
    partisanship? Your bias staggers the imagination.

    Should this also be considered a promise to stop if
    and when they merge?

    I see Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft and other players each as
    helping net progress. Not without serious faults in all.
    Glass half empty? Or half full? Or twice as big as required!

    -- Robert R
    Robert Redelmeier, Dec 20, 2008
  19. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    Nothing obliges you to do anything. What's happening here is so
    unimportant that I can't find words for it. If you think otherwise,
    you need professional help.
    Don't worry about me.
    I'm tired from shoveling. You really are just too much.
    Listen, asshole. What you don't understand would fill the Library of
    Congress several times over. You don't know what you're talking

    If I really DON'T understand something about interactions with you,
    maybe there's a reason? In your neatly closed moral universe,
    everyone is just as you imagine them to be. In this case, you've got
    it so wrong that it's beyond imagining that you would ever understand
    just how wrong you are and why.

    Who knows? I may be making the exact same mistake with you.
    A self-righteous vigilante is hardly better than a bully. I don't
    have a problem with Yousuf. I do have a problem with you. To say
    that I have a problem with Sebastian would imply that we have any kind
    of relationship at all, and we don't.

    Robert Myers, Dec 20, 2008
  20. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    I don't have to explain myself to you, and I don't propose to.
    *Rolls eyes* And...?
    What staggers the imagination is the way that you take yourself
    seriously. Yousuf's scrambling to find positive things to say about
    AMD and negative things to say about Intel is just funny.

    The IBM connection is somewhat less amusing. In all seriousness, I
    don't think that AMD can be a subsidiary of IBM, otherwise I think it
    already would have happened.
    That was not a serious comment. I think the AMD thing is over.
    I don't admire AMD and Microsoft and I've said why over and over and
    over again. Intel would be a case study in just how many things you
    can do wrong and still stay on top of the heap. IBM is IBM. Without
    IBM, Linux would have no credible future.

    Robert Myers, Dec 20, 2008
    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.