Actually tape out refers back to the days when they used to store designs on magnetic tape. The tape out was when the design was completed and written to tape to be handed over to the next team.
It could even go back further when circuits were actually laid out using black tape to create the layout of the board as camera ready art for photolythography.
Ok time for some corrections from a Intel Insider.
Merom is a 65nm Pentium M deritivitive. It does not appear to be netburst (pentium 4) based. It includes SSE3 extensions but merom (this is NOT the dektop version of the processor) does NOT include 64 bit extensions as of April 2005. However the desktop version DOES have 64 bit extensions.
You know for an "insider" you get a lot of stuff wrong. Merom is 64 bit as well.
It could even go back further when circuits were actually laid out using black tape to create the layout of the board as camera ready art for photolythography.
That's where the term came from. Although it was reserved for the first post-prototype version genuinely believed to be free from errata.
No. Again, a misleading information. Merom seems to have been taped-in (design finished and sent to the fab) in June, precisely first or second week of June 2005. This step is before creation of the mask (tape-out). Is this really important anyway?
Sent to the fab for production testing, not prototyping. Hence actually taped-out.
Try Google. I had no trouble getting March (2004 that is by the way. Back when Intel axed the follow on to Prescott, which would be a logical time to make the call) and you don't make a design change that big less than 6 months from tape out. But hey I've been wrong before...that usually involved women though
Merom was originally planned as the successor to Dothan in 2005. But that Merom (single core) isn't the Merom (dual core) which will succeed Yonah.
Sometimes plans change alot...
Not according to publications dated March 2004. They quite specifically state Yonah will be followed by Merom that will be produced on a 65 nm process with IA32e (Intel's 64 bit extensions). In fact the only difference between the published specs and final Merom seems to be power dissipation, which was listed as higher and the fact they weren't sure on hyperthreading. Designs don't change that fast.
Edit: And I now found reference to Merom as a 64 bit follow on to Yonah (Jonah) from Feb 2004 along with specific references to desktop and server versions, Conroe and Gilo. So can we say the whole Merom wasn't 64 bit theory is thoroughly debunked?
Not according to publications dated March 2004. They quite specifically state Yonah will be followed by Merom that will be produced on a 65 nm process with IA32e (Intel's 64 bit extensions). In fact the only difference between the published specs and final Merom seems to be power dissipation, which was listed as higher and the fact they weren't sure on hyperthreading. Designs don't change that fast.
Edit: And I now found reference to Merom as a 64 bit follow on to Yonah (Jonah) from Feb 2004 along with specific references to desktop and server versions, Conroe and Gilo. So can we say the whole Merom wasn't 64 bit theory is thoroughly debunked?
Linky for the info about Merom and x86 64-bit from El Reg (March 2004).
Comments
Originally posted by Telomar
Actually tape out refers back to the days when they used to store designs on magnetic tape. The tape out was when the design was completed and written to tape to be handed over to the next team.
It could even go back further when circuits were actually laid out using black tape to create the layout of the board as camera ready art for photolythography.
Originally posted by cwestpha
Ok time for some corrections from a Intel Insider.
Merom is a 65nm Pentium M deritivitive. It does not appear to be netburst (pentium 4) based. It includes SSE3 extensions but merom (this is NOT the dektop version of the processor) does NOT include 64 bit extensions as of April 2005. However the desktop version DOES have 64 bit extensions.
You know for an "insider" you get a lot of stuff wrong. Merom is 64 bit as well.
Of interest:
He also declined to discuss whether the chips will feature two processor cores or four.
He also declined to discuss whether the chips will feature two processor cores or four. [/B]
Intel's just being coy. Their roadmaps show no quad-core in 2006.
Originally posted by @homenow
It could even go back further when circuits were actually laid out using black tape to create the layout of the board as camera ready art for photolythography.
That's where the term came from. Although it was reserved for the first post-prototype version genuinely believed to be free from errata.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
No. Again, a misleading information. Merom seems to have been taped-in (design finished and sent to the fab) in June, precisely first or second week of June 2005. This step is before creation of the mask (tape-out). Is this really important anyway?
Sent to the fab for production testing, not prototyping. Hence actually taped-out.
Production testing can still take many months.
Originally posted by cwestpha
Merom [...] does NOT include 64 bit extensions as of April 2005.
However the desktop version DOES have 64 bit extensions.
Originally posted by Telomar
Merom is 64 bit as well.
as of April 2005 was correct.
But plans change
Originally posted by smalM
as of April 2005 was correct.
But plans change
Try Google. I had no trouble getting March (2004 that is by the way. Back when Intel axed the follow on to Prescott, which would be a logical time to make the call) and you don't make a design change that big less than 6 months from tape out. But hey I've been wrong before...that usually involved women though
Sometimes plans change alot...
Originally posted by smalM
Merom was originally planned as the successor to Dothan in 2005. But that Merom (single core) isn't the Merom (dual core) which will succeed Yonah.
Sometimes plans change alot...
Not according to publications dated March 2004. They quite specifically state Yonah will be followed by Merom that will be produced on a 65 nm process with IA32e (Intel's 64 bit extensions). In fact the only difference between the published specs and final Merom seems to be power dissipation, which was listed as higher and the fact they weren't sure on hyperthreading. Designs don't change that fast.
Edit: And I now found reference to Merom as a 64 bit follow on to Yonah (Jonah) from Feb 2004 along with specific references to desktop and server versions, Conroe and Gilo. So can we say the whole Merom wasn't 64 bit theory is thoroughly debunked?
Originally posted by Telomar
Not according to publications dated March 2004. They quite specifically state Yonah will be followed by Merom that will be produced on a 65 nm process with IA32e (Intel's 64 bit extensions). In fact the only difference between the published specs and final Merom seems to be power dissipation, which was listed as higher and the fact they weren't sure on hyperthreading. Designs don't change that fast.
Edit: And I now found reference to Merom as a 64 bit follow on to Yonah (Jonah) from Feb 2004 along with specific references to desktop and server versions, Conroe and Gilo. So can we say the whole Merom wasn't 64 bit theory is thoroughly debunked?
Linky for the info about Merom and x86 64-bit from El Reg (March 2004).
Is there still 4MB cache?