According to slides which resemble those from the roadmaps of Advanced Micro Devices, the first desktop chip from the world’s second largest chipmaker made using 65nm process technology will be released in the first half of 2007 to substitute the mainstream dual-core 90nm products. Another 65nm microprocessor is slated to be released in the second half of next year and target entry-level computers.
The slides, which presumably reflect a recent roadmap of AMD, published by HKEPC web-site contain some information about code-named Brisbane and Sparta processors. The Brisbane chip will be made using 65nm process technology, will sport two processing engines and will come out in the first half of 2007. Meanwhile, the product code-named Sparta, also made using 65nm process technology, will be launched in the second half of next year.
If the slides are correct, then Brisbane will target the market of mainstream dual-core processors, whereas Sparta will serve entry-level computers.
Both 65nm processors will be designed for Socket AM2 form-factor, which means that both will support dual-channel DDR2 memory, but it is unclear what speed-bin. It is unclear which additional technologies – enhanced security code-named Presidio, virtualization named Pacifica, etc. – these chips will support.
AMD traditionally begins transition to thinner process technologies starting from its low-cost and mainstream product lineups. High-end offerings are typically made using mature fabrication processes.
The beginning of revenue shipments of 65nm chips was delayed by AMD. Initially AMD indicated that the “idea” of AMD was to begin to process 65nm in the middle of 2005 and “bring it into production in 2006”. Late in 2005 the company said it would only begin production of 65nm in late 2006.
AMD did not comment on the news-story.
Comments currently: 25
Discussion started: 02/08/06 03:00:21 PM
Latest comment: 08/25/06 10:57:58 AM
Expand all threads
| Collapse all threads
Spoken like a true Intel fanboy. While 65nm would be nice, it's not like they NEED 65nm like Intel does. For Intel it was either cooler 65nm chips or keep putting out hot 90nm chips.
Mediocre Athlon64 indeed. . . .what the hell ever.
02/08/06 06:41:18 PM]
- collapse thread
You apparently couldn't understand that Merom/Conroe is coming out. Right now, Intel does need 65nm because the Pentium 4 is so poor. The Merom/Conroe promise to be much better, especially since the Yonah is already a very good processor and will be substantially improved.
Only an idiot would think that AMD can continue lag Intel in manufacturing while having such a mediocre design. There is nothing great about the Athlon 64, it struggles against the Yonah despite being larger and being a desktop chip. It uses more power as well. On top of this, the Athlon 64 has an on-die memory controller and still struggles. This is a great processor? Hardly. It's mediocre and the Pentium 4 is awful, so by comparison it's good. Compared to the Yonah, it isn't. Compared to something better than the Yonah, it's hard to see how it will look good.
On top of this, Intel is now introducing the Yonah into the server realm. This bodes poorly for AMD since in many applications it is clearly a better processor, considering the power efficiency.
I've been a backer of AMD for a long time, for well over 15 years, but they look weak moving into the future. I don't want Intel to get too strong again, so I'm concerned that AMD is so incompetent at manufacturing and seem to be self-righteous about it. They should be in a near panic being so far behind, because they have a ton of other disadvantages as well, being so small. This includes much less product and solution offerings, like compilers, chipsets, motherboards. Plus, economy of scale. Once the Pentium 4 is a bad memory, these things are going to come into play more. Right now, the Pentium 4 is such a poor chip, they can't tilt the balance.
Being over a year behind Intel in lithography is going to kill them in the long run. They better narrow that gap.
02/08/06 07:12:11 PM]
Yohan is being introduced on the server only on LV/ULV.
Intel is just doing this because this year, Fujitsu-Siemens, DELL, HP, IBM, SUN and many other will increase their AMD based products severely.
Intel must do something about it, so here it is.
"This includes much less product and solution offerings, like compilers, chipsets, motherboards"
You are right but who have been the one bridging some innovation? Who was the pusher of x64? The company that doesn’t do compilers but have done x64.
Being small means you have to concentrate all your energy on one thing, or you get screed, look at VIA for example (http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/) they do almost everything, but none of them is good enough to get some special attention.
02/09/06 05:35:38 AM]
Do you need glasses to read those articles comparing Yonah and A64?
The overall performance difference is none. Both do about the same. Yonah may win here, A64 may win there, but overall performance is in line with one another.
If A64 is mediocre, what's Yonah? A modified Pentium III design with a P4 bus and various powersaving features slapped in. Wow, superior innovation right there!
What you're saying, TA152H, is equivalent to labelling Windows a superior design to anything out there...When its clearly not. (and in truth, 60%+ of the webservers out there are Linux-based or some other Unix variation).
The key disadvantage to AMD is their limited resources, not the processor design. They don't have the same manufacturing capacity, R&D and marketing machine as Intel.
They don't have the resources to compete with Intel, one on one at EVERYTHING. They do what they can with the resources they have.
Even with your mental capacity, its not hard to figure out. Think about it. Intel currently has Itanium, P4/P-D, Pentium-M that covers the mobile, desktop, workstation and server markets.
There are 3 very different designs to chose from, based on your needs.
With AMD, they just use one design and make variations of it.
Sempron = K8, small cache.
Sempron64 = same as previous, but with AMD64 capability. Identical to A64 but with less cache.
A64 = Desktop/Workstation. Larger cache, dual-core models.
Opteron = Workstation/Server. As above, as well as SMP support.
And you expect AMD to compete 1 to 1 with Intel? Yeah, right. Already, you can see by AMD's attempts at using one design for almost everything, that they don't have the capacity to take on Intel head-on.
Seriously, TA152H...Get a life. You post every time there's an article about Intel or AMD.
BTW, your Intel reality distortion field is set too high. Consider toning it down, and coming back to the REAL WORLD.
02/09/06 01:36:02 AM]
Other thing TA152H,
Even if Merom/Conroe will only use 30W while AMD uses 45W/65W. People still go after AMD (like they have gone in the past) because AMD will be always cheaper.
Other thing is if AMD consumes more but runs faster than Merom/Conroe, people will go for the faster, because the problem of P4 is not just it's super power consuming, is the very poor performance it gives.
It’s not even an question of performance/watt ratio that Intel wants to bring into the market, because if it was that we would be talking of Via C7, mobile phones processors, …
02/09/06 05:48:38 AM]
Hey TA152H, go troll somewhere else, nobody cares for your idiotic rants.
02/09/06 09:04:19 AM]
Add your Comment
Enter your username and e-mail address. Password will be sent to you.