AMD gearing up for speed
I read this article on http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...c_nf/22649&e=4 Which talks about the plans AMD has, and this part of the story caught my eye.
" Notebook Plans
In early 2004, AMD will release the first 64-bit chip for notebooks, a version of its Athlon64 now used in desktops. Later in 2004, the company will release "Odessa," a 64-bit laptop chip fabricated with a 90-nanometer design. The 90-nanometer design provides improved speed and performance over today's 130-nanometer processors.
AMD had hoped to transition to the 90nm design by the end of this year, but the revised roadmap indicates this was delayed. "We are on schedule to wrap up production of 90 nanometer by the end of the second half of 2004," AMD spokesperson Jen Trong told NewsFactor.
In late 2004, AMD will launch "Dublin," a 130nm chip designed for the entry-level laptop market.
In early 2005, the company will release "Oakville," and "Trinidad," 90nm 64-bit laptop processors fabricated with a smaller die than that used in the Athlon."
Eek... Apple has some big competition coming up at them, especially the 64-bit laptops...
" Notebook Plans
In early 2004, AMD will release the first 64-bit chip for notebooks, a version of its Athlon64 now used in desktops. Later in 2004, the company will release "Odessa," a 64-bit laptop chip fabricated with a 90-nanometer design. The 90-nanometer design provides improved speed and performance over today's 130-nanometer processors.
AMD had hoped to transition to the 90nm design by the end of this year, but the revised roadmap indicates this was delayed. "We are on schedule to wrap up production of 90 nanometer by the end of the second half of 2004," AMD spokesperson Jen Trong told NewsFactor.
In late 2004, AMD will launch "Dublin," a 130nm chip designed for the entry-level laptop market.
In early 2005, the company will release "Oakville," and "Trinidad," 90nm 64-bit laptop processors fabricated with a smaller die than that used in the Athlon."
Eek... Apple has some big competition coming up at them, especially the 64-bit laptops...
Comments
Between the very real competition from AMd and the Centrino, the only feature that Apples laptops will have to distinguish them in the market place will be MAC/OS. We have all seen what little attacrtion there is in the market place for Apples operating system. While OS/X is getting better you don't see people jumping over themselves to adopt it yet.
Apple always underestimates the importance of hardware performance. Hopefully this won't happen again with the laptop line. I would be just as happy to see a high performance G4 but we all know how unlikely that is.
Dave
Originally posted by Ichiban_jay
I read this article on http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...c_nf/22649&e=4 Which talks about the plans AMD has, and this part of the story caught my eye.
" Notebook Plans
In early 2004, AMD will release the first 64-bit chip for notebooks, a version of its Athlon64 now used in desktops. Later in 2004, the company will release "Odessa," a 64-bit laptop chip fabricated with a 90-nanometer design. The 90-nanometer design provides improved speed and performance over today's 130-nanometer processors.
AMD had hoped to transition to the 90nm design by the end of this year, but the revised roadmap indicates this was delayed. "We are on schedule to wrap up production of 90 nanometer by the end of the second half of 2004," AMD spokesperson Jen Trong told NewsFactor.
In late 2004, AMD will launch "Dublin," a 130nm chip designed for the entry-level laptop market.
In early 2005, the company will release "Oakville," and "Trinidad," 90nm 64-bit laptop processors fabricated with a smaller die than that used in the Athlon."
Eek... Apple has some big competition coming up at them, especially the 64-bit laptops...
Originally posted by wizard69
Between the very real competition from AMd and the Centrino, the only feature that Apples laptops will have to distinguish them in the market place will be MAC/OS.
Dave
put a pc laptop next to a powerbook........ there's a lot more to distinguish between them than OS.
nothing comes close to apple portables in terms of design, functionality, and how well it al works together.
www.apple.com/investor/ ... it's in the Q&A of the analyst meeting
So, it therefore implies that IBM's 90-nanometer fabrication would be up and running and that the PowerPC 970 would also be utilizing 90-nanometer technology at the same time if not sooner.
Originally posted by Ichiban_jay
Eek... Apple has some big competition coming up at them, especially the 64-bit laptops...
Exactly. This is a review of a preproduction model of the upcoming 64-bit Athlon based notebook. Look at the power requirements. It is essentially a desktop processor in a laptop, but the point is that AMD will almost certainly steal the thunder of the first 64-bit notebook, even if this is more a deskonotebook. From a marketing viewpoint it is still a notebook and it will sell as such.
Only if IBM is well on schedule with the 90 nm process, we can hope for an early (that is, on or slightly before summer) G5 powerbook announcement. On the other hand, I really don't see what else can be put on powerbooks (and subsequently, on iBooks) to keep up with the competition for a year or so.
Originally posted by applenut
put a pc laptop next to a powerbook........ there's a lot more to distinguish between them than OS.
nothing comes close to apple portables in terms of design, functionality, and how well it al works together.
You are absolutely right. I putted my 17 inch alubook next to my father's Dell laptop, and the difference was amazing.
People tend to reduce computers only to benchmarks. Benchmarks are important but it's not everything.
For example i have now a 512 K modem, and it's great. I tried on both my G4 533 and my dual G5, and i can't tell the difference without benchmarking it. My user experience was the same : quite disapointing if we consider the different level of performance ot these two computers.
Originally posted by tink
What I think is more telling is that IBM Fabs AMD chips I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
So, it therefore implies that IBM's 90-nanometer fabrication would be up and running and that the PowerPC 970 would also be utilizing 90-nanometer technology at the same time if not sooner.
This is partially correct. IBM and AMD have been rumoured to be working towards IBM fabbing some of the processors for AMD, as well as doing joint work on R&D. I'm not sure that I've seen an official announcement yet though.
The last time I checked, the majority of AMD CPUs were being manufactured at AMD's Dresden "Fab 30" plant in Germany, with their only other active fab facility being in Austin, Texas (not sure if the latter is still active). AMD put a huge amount of money into Dresden, with plenty of available room for future expansion, so IBM fabbing would supplement AMD's own capacity, as opposed to replacing it.
I'm personally interested to see if IBM will be manufacturing a 3rd model for us in laptops (i.e. Power4 for servers, 970 for the Apple G5 desktops, and a third variant for Apple G5 Powerbooks).
AMD released its 2.25 GHz Athlon XP 2800+ in October 2002.
AMD's fastest current Athlon 64 is the 2.2 GHz FX-51.
You'd think they would have been able to at least make some progress on the clock frequency front in the period of a year.
Originally posted by Eugene
Gearing up, or getting back in gear?
AMD released its 2.25 GHz Athlon XP 2800+ in October 2002.
AMD's fastest current Athlon 64 is the 2.2 GHz FX-51.
You'd think they would have been able to at least make some progress on the clock frequency front in the period of a year.
No one, not even Intel will be able to release higher clocked CPUs until the industry moves to 0.09-micron. Insane power requirements and electrical leakage are holding everyone back. Until these problems are addressed, the march towards higher clock speeds will continue to be slow. CPU makers are being forced to use other methods to make CPUs faster. Integrated memory controllers, larger caches, faster buses, and hyper-threading are the most obvious examples.
Originally posted by Kecksy
No one, not even Intel will be able to release higher clocked CPUs until the industry moves to 0.09-micron. Insane power requirements and electrical leakage are holding everyone back. Until these problems are addressed, the march towards higher clock speeds will continue to be slow. CPU makers are being forced to use other methods to make CPUs faster. Integrated memory controllers, larger caches, faster buses, and hyper-threading are the most obvious examples.
this sounds very good for the PowerPC production... the advantage (clockspeed) of x86 will soon be gone
Originally posted by Krassy
this sounds very good for the PowerPC production... the advantage (clockspeed) of x86 will soon be gone
Not really, it probably won't be long until the industry does move to 0.09 micron.
P.s. Kecksy and Krassy! K and Y!
Originally posted by Kecksy
No one, not even Intel will be able to release higher clocked CPUs until the industry moves to 0.09-micron.
Name one other company that has been stuck at one clockspeed for over a year. AMD's the only one. Maturation of their .13µ process should have yielded at least a marginal improvement. Intel at least moved from 2.8 GHz to 3.2 GHz in that same amount of time, and a 3.4 GHz .13µ P4 "EE" is pending.
Originally posted by Eugene
Name one other company that has been stuck at one clockspeed for over a year.
Motorola. The dark, dark days of 500Mhz towers...I remember them well.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
Not really, it probably won't be long until the industry does move to 0.09 micron.
P.s. Kecksy and Krassy! K and Y!
i think that IBM will go to 2.5 GHz with their 0.13 micron process. after this, the 970 will go 0.09. so intel: 3.2 GHz and IBM: 2.5 GHz
and after changing to 0.09 we could see intel at max 4.2 GHz and IBM at 3.3GHz with room to grow due to their easier architecture and high pipelines...
or am i completely wrong?
yeah cool
krassy and
kressy and
kreksy and
krcksy and
kecksy
that's life
Originally posted by Krassy
i think that IBM will go to 2.5 GHz with their 0.13 micron process.
Well there own documents (unofficial) say that that the 970 clocks to 2.5 Ghz. [Take a look @ page 23]
Originally posted by Eugene
Gearing up, or getting back in gear?
AMD released its 2.25 GHz Athlon XP 2800+ in October 2002.
AMD's fastest current Athlon 64 is the 2.2 GHz FX-51.
You'd think they would have been able to at least make some progress on the clock frequency front in the period of a year.
If you look at the specs you see that the new Athlon 64 2.2 GHz FX-51 is much more powerful than the old 2.25 GHz Athlon XP 2800+.
The Athlon 2800+ performed about as well as a 2.8GHz P4. The Athlon 64 2.2 GHz FX-51 is faster than 3.2GHz P4s.
It is the processing power of the chip that maters, not its clock speed.
Originally posted by 709
Motorola. The dark, dark days of 500Mhz towers...I remember them well.
Motorola was actually 2 years! But I was talking about the present state. In this time, Motorola had gone from 1.25 GHz to 1.42 GHz at least...with .18µ transistors even.
Consider too that the desire for larger caches is pushing the manufacture to the new process as is some of the other technology.
Hyper-Threading is a way to increase processor power and would have evolved even if the switch ot 0.09um was pain free. Hyper-Threading is a way to extend current processor performance with a minmal investment in new logic in a current processor design. It is not a feature that came about due to an in ability to shrink a process. It is a rational way to provide a modest improvement in capabilities for some code bases.
Dave
Originally posted by Kecksy
No one, not even Intel will be able to release higher clocked CPUs until the industry moves to 0.09-micron. Insane power requirements and electrical leakage are holding everyone back. Until these problems are addressed, the march towards higher clock speeds will continue to be slow. CPU makers are being forced to use other methods to make CPUs faster. Integrated memory controllers, larger caches, faster buses, and hyper-threading are the most obvious examples.
Originally posted by Res
If you look at the specs you see that the new Athlon 64 2.2 GHz FX-51 is much more powerful than the old 2.25 GHz Athlon XP 2800+.
The Athlon 2800+ performed about as well as a 2.8GHz P4. The Athlon 64 2.2 GHz FX-51 is faster than 3.2GHz P4s.
It is the processing power of the chip that maters, not its clock speed.
Let's not get into real-world performance comparisons of different processors here. My criticism only concerns intra-company gains, and AMD has really had none. The Athlon 64 is not as wildly different from the Athlon XP as you might expect. Because of this, it's not that surprising they are both similarly clocked. All I'm saying is AMD is experiencing difficulty pushing the limits of the .13µ process while neither IBM nor Intel are in a similar debacle.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
Not really, it probably won't be long until the industry does move to 0.09 micron.
True, they're in the process of transitioning now and most claim they'll be ready for volume production in Q2 2004. It's reasonable to assume then that IBM will be able to take the G5 to 3GHz by summer in time for an Apple update. A 50% increase in clock speed by summer is probably better than what Intel will be able to pull off. I doubt we'll see 5GHz Pentiums in the next 12 months. Prescott is supposed to dissapate over 100 watts at 3.4GHz, and that's on 0.09-micron! No way they're going to make it 5GHz without skrinking the process again.
PowerPC 970 is looking very strong, I think. The only thing Apple has to worry about is the Athlon64. It could could scale just as well.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
P.s. Kecksy and Krassy! K and Y!
What the hell is that supposed to mean?