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.

so Jobs gets screwed by IBM over game consoles, thus Apple-Intel ?

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Guest, Jun 10, 2005.

  1. In other words, IBM and AMD press releases. No functional comparisons made.

    Intel, and the rest of the industry, are stuck with heat/dissipation
    problems. However, we do have one indicator of the relative degree of the
    problem. After years of extolling the superiority of IBM technology (which
    you seem to be so much impressed with) Jobs announced that he was abandoning
    it, precisely because it did NOT match up to Intel technology with regards
    to heat/dissipation problems. Moreover, he saw nothing on their technology
    roadmap that would give him any hope that they would improve it.
    No. He said it was "reasonably hefty". Whether it was suitably sized or not
    would depend on AMD's business. A 5K/week fab is a modest-sized fab. The
    largest ones can produce 15K 300 mm wafers/wk. That is 6 times the capacity
    of fab 30.

    Of course there are many 90nm plants but not many
    There have been other fabs "producing" 90 nm product for several years now.
    The point was that AMD finally converted their fab completely to 90 nm just
    recently. That is at least a year behind Intel and others. And, it is only a
    200 mm line, compared to the industry standard of 300 mm.
    A line that produces prototype product is a prototype line. For example,
    typical prototype lines run SRAM wafers. When it finishes the prototype
    stage then, if it is suitably sized, it can start ramping production. The
    Intel announcement, for example, referred to a new production-sized fab in
    Ireland. AFAIK, nobody builds pilot plant fabs any more. It is just too
    expensive and time consuming. Fabs built for developing a new process are
    sized to be useful for production. If not, you would encounter yet another
    set of problems when you attempted to scale the process.
    money".:-[]

    This ubiquitous "Others" makes many statements. "Others" claimed to know
    that the AMD 90 nm process is superior to the Intel process, for example.But if Mr. Others is saying that AMD couldn't deliver equivalent product at
    a competitive price, I would agree with him.

    James
     
    James Arveson, Jul 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Tony Hill Guest

    Err... what lag? Intel will be the first to start shipping chips
    built on a 65nm process in about 6-10 months time, the foundries
    aren't on track for 65nm until at least this time next year and
    probably not until next fall. AMD has already started test-runs in
    their new Fab36 facility and should be roughly tied with IBM for
    second to ship 65nm products, probably next spring.

    Yes, they are usually a couple months behind Intel in starting a
    switch over to a new process, but they tend to have a shorter
    switchover time (where Intel usually takes about a year to switch
    their processors from one fab generation to the next, AMD usually
    finishes in about 8 months). We saw this same sort of thing when
    Intel and AMD transitioned to 90nm this time last year. Intel
    "released" (using the term loosely) their first 90nm chips in Feb. of
    2004. They first hit widespread availability in about May or June of
    2004 and then it took until about the end of the year before that was
    all they were producing. AMD didn't release their first 90nm chips
    for a few months later, about this time last year, but had
    availability pretty much right from the get-go and had completed their
    transition to 90nm at the end of the year as well.
     
    Tony Hill, Jul 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. I was speaking more to the track record. As you pointed out to me, AMD has
    just finally completed their conversion of Fab 20 to 90 nm, As it is only a
    200 mm fab, the are still behind Intel (and much of the rest of the industry
    leaders). Perhaps AMD will be able to make up some of this lag with their
    new Fab, but that is a hope for the future, not the present.

    As to 65 nm, Intel claims to have been busy characterizing that process
    since late 2003.
    http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=17324
    And I thought that their fab wasn't completely converted until recently.
    There is a common confusion between first shipped and high volume
    production. When a fab is pushing a full volume of wafers through the line,
    at targeted yields, then HVP has been achieved.

    And still running only 200 mm. There IS a difference between a 200 and 300
    mm line - about 2X

    James
     
    James Arveson, Jul 4, 2005
  4. I am able to "read" more than press releases - you? I'm not going to do
    your research for you.
    AMD is not in the same position as Intel here. Please try to get some
    relevant info before spouting.
    It's my understanding that the power management, or lack of it in PowerPC,
    is the main(?) problem for Apple... something which AMD brings to the
    IBM/AMD alliance and possibly some technology they obtained in part from
    Transmeta. Why IBM has not taken that up I have no idea.

    According to what I read of the principal reasons -- lack of mobile capable
    G5 -- Apple has been seduced by a big lie: they talk of Intel notebooks
    running 3GHz and higher and point to their miserly 1.67GHz chip; trouble is
    Apple is not going to get those Intel chips, since they are obsolescent
    mobile P4s. Intel's future lies with P-M and developments thereof... *and*
    what speed are P-Ms running at?... 2.0GHz but there are damned few of them
    and they run hot at full tilt. The most common P-M notebook runs at
    1.7/1.8GHz... in fact very close to the iBooks at 1.67.

    By the time Apple starts selling Intel-based systems, I'd say a fair
    estimate of where Intel will be clockwise is ~2.6GHz with their new chip
    derived from P-M. Sorry but I can't keep up with all the stupid code names
    they dream up. At any rate, Apple's published(?) or imagined technical
    reasons for switching are either a lie or a smokescreen.
    Intel may have such fabs at such high density logic - nobody else I can
    think of has... but I don't follow TI and some of the other non-CPU fabs so
    closely. Certainly Moto/Freescale turned out to be a big loser for AMD
    *and* Apple so count them out. The fact is that 5K in the design rules and
    process technology of Fab 30 *is* a respectable count... and certainly well
    capable of supplying more than AMD's current market share - the addition of
    Apple's piddly amount would not have beeen a big additional burden.
    I believe you are wrong here - Intel did not complete to all 90nm CPU
    conversion a year ago - they had first usable 90nm chips about a year ago.
    As for "industry standard", the transition to 300mm has happened slowly
    over the past year in HDL, where it is necessary and useful - it's hardly a
    "standard". The fact that there are a bunch of flash, SRAM and DRAM plants
    at 300mm is irrelevant.
    Whether it was produced on a full production line or not, the early Intel
    65nm could by no means be considered prototype production - call it what
    you want but it was a pilot project... a bit above proof of concept if you
    like, from which a decision to "build" was taken. Hell the initial
    "demonstration" around August 2004, *was* on SRAM chips... hardly prototype
    CPUs. The infrastructure, including floorspace, is currently in various
    states of construction in 3 locations.

    I've no idea which Intel announcement you're referring to nor when it was
    made. There have been several PR releases, news items, on the Ireland
    plant situation and the go ahead for what is termed an expansion of an
    existing plant was only taken in Feb/March this year, after an application
    for EU aid was turned down. Ireland's economy is now considered "fixed"
    and there are many other EU regions which need the stimulation more... like
    East germany e.g.:)
    Look it up - Dual Stress Liner on Cu+SOI *is* generally considered more
    advanced. The results are apparent in the higher performance,
    cooler-running product.
    And yet they do - you can buy a better, very competitively priced product
    right now and they make a profit from it, despite all the Intel marketing
    chicanery. You're wrong again... and apparently out of touch with
    reality.:-[]
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 5, 2005
  5. It was you that made this assertion. If you can't back it up with anything
    but some vague, unsupported claims, then we will have to take your admission
    of ignorance on the subject more seriously than the claims themselves.
    Another assertion. Perhaps you will share with us the basis for your claim -
    or do we have to find your supporting evidence ourselves?
    The problem is, in part a power management architecture issue. However, it
    is also strongly dependent on leakage currents in the basic structures. A
    successful solution, such as the Centrino design, depends on both
    approaches.
    Who is this "they"? Is it the same source that you referred to as "others"?

    Intel's future lies with P-M and developments thereof... *and*
    Strange. I just bought a Toshiba Tecra M3 with a 2 GHz P4-M. They didn't
    have any trouble delivering it.

    The most common P-M notebook runs at
    Jobs clearly stated that a G4 running at 1.6Ghz wasn't competitive with a
    P4-M running at 1.8 GHz.
    No doubt! It contradicts your views on the technology, therefore they must
    be lies.
    TSMC, UMC for example. They are producing high performance GPUs on it. Take
    a look at a summary of the situation, as of over a year ago. No mention of
    AMD.
    http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004May/bch20040524025287.htm


    but I don't follow TI and some of the other non-CPU fabs so
    No it isn't respectable. A 200 mm fab just now coming into full production
    at 90 nm is at least a year behind Intel and the Tawainese foundries.

    Many, many fabs have been "producing" for longer than that. What separates
    the men from the boys is the ability to run the fab at HV production and
    high yield - and at 300 mm. AMD still isn't there yet.


    m just
    They didn't have all of their fabs converted, but they had one Irish fab
    fully converted over a year ago.
    If you build a full-blown fab to develop the process on, the decision has
    already been made. This idea that you run the process in a pilot line before
    building a production line is archaic. I would assume that nobody (except
    IBM) does this any more. Certainly Intel and the taiwanese use the above
    strategy.
    No doubt the EU input will impact future expansion in Ireland. I don't it
    think it will affect exisiting plans, however.

    Mr. Generally made such a claim? Where was this? In the AMD marketing
    office?
    AMD does indeed make an attractive product - for the desktop. Jobs stated
    that he was motivated by the poor power performance of PPC and its impact on
    the high margin, high growth laptop market. He stated it was this
    consideration that moved him to Intel - but those are all lies, of course.
    It was all some secret plot.

    It's really hard to tell if AMD is making a profit or not from their
    processors. Their overall gross margins are mediocre, but they are saddled
    with failing businesses, such as the flash business. I guess Intel's much
    larger flash business somehow doesn't impact their gross margins in the same
    way.

    James
     
    James Arveson, Jul 5, 2005
  6. Guest

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Read it again, he's talking about P-M's not P4-M's. Totally different
    architectures.
    You're misunderstanding the meaning of "coming into full production at
    90nm". Up until now, the mix of chips has been 130nm and 90nm. The 130nm
    chips were the last of their production of K7 chips, which have now been
    phased out completely. That's why it's now into full production on 90nm,
    they are now only manufacturing K8 chips at 90nm. They used the same
    lines for 130nm and 90nm, just like they used the same lines for 180nm
    and 130nm previously. Their line is flexible enough to do that.
    You mean Intel's much /smaller/ flash business.


    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Jul 5, 2005
  7. The only ignorance on display here is by you - adding unfounded speculative
    accusations only weakens your position. I've told you the info is out
    there but you seem incapable of using a search engine with the appropriate
    string(s).
    It is fact - Intel has serious heat problems with their top-end CPUs; AMD
    doesn't. You can look up any of the Web sites which do benchmarks - the
    infamous THG even had to re-hash their recent long-term stability tests,
    with restarts, so as not to make the Intel chips look too bad. This is all
    common fact. You could also buy an Athlon64 system and check it out for
    yourself.:-[]
    AMD has uhh, mastered the problem and they are apparently using the same
    process technology. Sorry that doesn't wash... and in fact Intel is
    suffering just as badly with power density and quiescent leakage. Uhh, BTW
    Are you reading challenged? APPLE... IT... THEY!... unless the reports of
    Jobs statements, by every media outlet I've seen on the subject, are all
    lies.
    Geez I hope you didn't buy a 2.0GHz P4-M but a P-M (Pentium M)... often
    known by the rabble as a Centrino.
    Nonsensical statement. Please try to stay on track.
    I'm afraid your statements in previous paras above have just disqualified
    you from further discussion of the subject - you haven't a clue what you're
    talking about.
    500MHz GPUs - a different animal altogether... as are the VIA CPUs TSMC(?)
    is making.
    But it is not just now coming into full production. Lying about the facts
    only indicts *you*.
    No, there are *not* many fabs which have been producing 300mm HDL CPUs at
    90nm for years. AMD made a decision that they did not need 300mm - it's
    not a BFD and your insistence on 300mm separating men from boys is
    picayune.
    Why are you insisting on misquoting me? Is this your tedious ploy to win
    an argument? I said it was "more of a pilot plant project". Whether the
    pilot project was on a separate pilot line or not matters not. The idea
    that you can make SRAMS at 65nm and just plunge into HDL CPU production is
    off the wall.
    Google for evidence - I do not save every site address I visit to satisfy
    Usenet sceptic like you... though I do recall www.xbitlabs.com had
    something for the non-expert reader. For the performance, as already
    stated compare the numbers.

    Oh, and just because you believe every piece of blurb put out by Intel does
    not mean that I also follow similar info paths.
    200Mhz in today's CPUs make hardly any difference in the same architecture
    - across architectures it's hard to tell but, though I've never owned one,
    it had always been my impression that clock for clock, a PowerPC would
    thrash any x86. At an rate, it sure makes ya wonder about Apple's
    marketing BS of the past few years. Dunno what they're going to do about
    that. I also wonder what Mr. Jobs is going to think when the honeynoon is
    over and he starts getting threats from Intel and watches as Dell buys CPUs
    for a fraction of what he has to pay.:)
    Intel lost a bunch on flash when they flooded the market 3-4Q 2004 - err.
    they called it building market share - RIGHT! It is *not* hard to tell if
    AMD is making a profit on processors - they *are* and their prices are
    holding remarkably well. Their flash business is in the process of being
    sold off... IPO'd. This stuff is easy to find the info on - arguing hard
    facts is grotesque.
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 5, 2005
  8. Correct. I meant the P-M Centrino.

    There is no such thing as a flexible line to manufacture two wafer sizes.
    The equipment sets are completely different. For example a batch of 300 mm
    wafers is much heavier than 200 mm wafers, and so the line has to be
    completely equiped with a whole new handling system. They essentially ran
    two factories under one roof.

    James
    No. I mean Intel's larger (but not much larger) flash business. The loss of
    market share to Intel is one reason that AMD decided to sell off the
    business.
    James
     
    James Arveson, Jul 5, 2005
  9. Guest

    YKhan Guest

    Okay, understood.
    Who said anything about 300mm? They were running 130nm and 90nm on the
    same 200mm wafers in this case. A lot of their equipment has adjustable
    resolutions to allow both the higher and lower density processes to be
    run simultaneously.

    They won't have 300mm wafers till Fab 36 opens. Fab 36 will likely
    start out at 65nm right off the bat, in early 2006. But they say they
    could start it off at 90nm on 300mm wafers too if they need.
    For the year 2004, Spansion was still the #1 NOR provider. There was a
    single quarter in 2004 where Intel outsold Spansion, after some heavy
    discounting going for marketshare. Intel made some heavy losses on that
    flash business because of it, but it dragged Spansion down with it too,
    which was the goal. AMD is basically just spinning off Spansion so that
    its earnings don't show up against its own. It'll retain a controlling
    interest it seems. After Spansion is spun off, it'll become less of a
    target for Intel.

    Yousuf Khan
     
    YKhan, Jul 5, 2005
  10. Guest

    Nate Edel Guest

    True... though I can't see any evidence of a shortage of 2.0/2.13ghz P-Ms at
    first-tier companies (or Dell, which isn't really, but gets Intel chips like
    it was first tier++). The price premium for the 2.13 is currently highway
    robbery, but that's true of pretty much all top-of-the-line chips.
     
    Nate Edel, Jul 5, 2005
  11. Guest

    Nate Edel Guest

    Certainly true of Intel's new desktop chips since Prescott came out; I
    haven't seen any evidence on THG or elsewhere that it's true at all for any
    of the 2 1/2 generations of Pentium-M chips, even at the highest speed
    ratings. I have yet to see anything comparable from AMD, in fact, though
    I've get to take the time to track down full reviews of any Turion-based
    laptops.
    Specs available online seem to indicate that the M3 is using the current
    generation (2mb cache, 533mhz fsb) of Pentium M, not any sort of P4. I'm
    fairly sure the P4-M is long gone from the market - replaced with the P-M
    and the repackaged desktop "Mobile P4."
    Totally depends on which generation of PowerPC, and which generation of
    x86... and which benchmark/workload you're talking about. x86 has never
    been superb at cranking floating point, improvements in vector FP since the
    P4 (and some improvement in non-vector with x86-64) notwithstanding, while
    the PowerPC has generally been quite strong in this area.

    At the same time, branch and integer performance has always been a lot
    closer, and IIRC there's been a lot of lag on bringing Macs in particular up
    to the latest memory performance and then FSB speeds - stuck on FPM memory
    when the Pentium had already gone to EDO, a bit later to adopt SDRAM, a bit
    later to adopt faster FSB speeds, a bit later to adopt DDR. Which hurts a
    good bit.

    Of course, P4 changed a lot of the rules, and clock-for-clock jumped a
    generation or two back. On the other hand, a ~50% clock speed advantage and
    more memory bandwidth makes up for a lot, if you don't care about power and
    heat.
     
    Nate Edel, Jul 5, 2005
  12. Didn't Intel at one time have a CPU available with 256k or 512k of
    cache, and the low cache size was one half or the other of the full size
    cache, selected with fusable links?

    From memory, feel free to do a refresh.
     
    Bill Davidsen, Jul 5, 2005
  13. Don't forget leakage. Doesn't matter how small or fast it would be if it
    didn't melt. I think that's the next area for a breakthrough.
     
    Bill Davidsen, Jul 5, 2005
  14. Guest

    TravelinMan Guest

    I seem to remember something like that with the Pentium Pro.
     
    TravelinMan, Jul 5, 2005
  15. I don't know if you don't understand that the P-M and P4-M are totally
    different chips, or simply were a bit confusing with your reply. The
    fact that you got delivery of a laptop running a P4-M CPU doesn't seem
    related to the previous paragraph you quote.

    On the other hand, that paragraph says the P-M are running hot, and
    there was a link posted here last week on O/C the P-M from 1.5 to 2.1 or
    so which showed the power use to be minimally increased with clock, and
    that the CPU ran up without voltage changes. I did bookmark that but on
    another system. I believe it was on tomshardware but if someone wants to
    add the correct link to this I won't have the link before next
    weekend, it's on a computer I left back home.

    I would say your 2.6GHz clock estimate is in agreement with mine, which
    doesn't make either of us right ;-) But I would expect Apple to use a
    dual core at slightly lower speed with some advanced power management if
    they can. And I believe they can, although it might not ship for another
    year or so (2008?).
     
    Bill Davidsen, Jul 5, 2005
  16. Guest

    keith Guest

    Many wish for such. Only time will tell if the applied-physics is wrong.
     
    keith, Jul 6, 2005
  17. Guest

    Tony Hill Guest

    I think you're really overestimating the rest of the industry,
    particularly in regard to shipping high-performance microprocessors.
    The very first 90nm products starting shipping about 2 years ago and
    companies producing high-end chips didn't really start until late
    2003/early 2004, right around the time that AMD starting producing
    their first 90nm chips. They are about 4-6 months behind the leaders,
    but that's it.
    Characterizing a process is a LONG way from even starting test runs of
    wafers, let alone actual production. Intel will have, at best, VERY
    limited 65nm production this year, just like everyone else. If the
    transition from 130nm to 90nm is any indication than it could be well
    into next year before we start seeing meaningful volume of 65nm
    production from any company.
    There's also a difference between pushing a high volume of wafers
    through the line and pushing ONLY a particular type of wafers through
    the line. The conversion doesn't happen overnight at ANY plant.
    Typically the cross-over from one process generation to the next takes
    a good 6-12 months. AMD is no different than any other company here.
    200mm vs. 300mm wafers should have almost no impact on how long it
    takes to transition from one process generation to the next. You
    still have the same number of machines to replace, the same sort of
    equipment to re-tune, all the same sorts of optimizations to make
    before really ramping up production. The real difference comes in
    your end result where you get twice as many dies when all is said and
    done.
     
    Tony Hill, Jul 6, 2005
  18. Guest

    Tony Hill Guest

    Uhh, are you really confusing the issue intentionally here? Who said
    anything at all about 200mm wafer vs. 300mm wafers in the same plant?
    The issue in question was the switchover from 130nm production to 90nm
    production! While you're correct that it's not really practical to
    have both 200mm and 300mm wafers in the same building, you most
    definitely can (and *EVERYONE* does) run two different process
    generations at the same time in the same building.
    Intel and AMD have been trading off between being the #1 company in
    flash for the past few years. They have pretty consistently being
    within a few percentage points of one another in marketshare. For
    most of 2004 AMD was the leader, but Intel slashed prices (apparently
    by fairly substantial amounts) towards the end of the year to gain
    marketshare. They are still fairly close.

    Neither of them have been particularly profitable in their endeavors
    to sell Flash memory. AMD has struggled to break even and only made
    money on flash about one out of every 3 or 4 quarters. Intel used to
    consistently lose money on their division that sold flash memory until
    they rejigged their business divisions to group flash alongside their
    mobile x86 processors and chipsets. Now it's much harder to pick out
    just which division is making money and which is losing, but they are
    showing a rather direct correlation between their mobile processor
    revenue and income from this division, suggesting that flash isn't
    contributing much (if anything) in the way of black ink.
     
    Tony Hill, Jul 6, 2005
  19. Guest

    Tony Hill Guest

    Intel not only used to have chips like that, they still do. This is
    exactly how their Celeron processors start their life. I don't know
    about their current Prescott/Celeron D chips, but the previous
    generation of Northwood P4/Celeron chips had identical dies. The P4
    chips had 512KB of cache, Celerons had 128KB of cache. Current
    Pentium-M and Celeron-M chips share a similar heritage. Previously
    they had PIII processors with 512KB of cache and Celerons with 256KB
    of cache, while prior to that the PIII had 256KB and the Celeron
    128KB. The original dies in each of these pairs were usually
    (always?) the same, just different amounts of cache enabled/disabled.

    However even in the larger-cache chips there is redundancy built in.
    Eg the new P4 600 series with 2MB of L2 cache has more than just 2MB
    of cache on the die.
     
    Tony Hill, Jul 6, 2005
    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.