Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Fab 36 designed for 65nm, 45nm, 32nm process generations.
http://images.visualwebcaster.com/29115/13002/Large/Slide120.jpg
That's somewhat misleading, Keith.
The early January disappointment was actually more than flash, if you recall. CPG did not improve as much as expected.
And yet another pro-Intel bank bashing AMD.
Your "given" is false (there are only a few socket A sempron parts left).
Another of Intel's bankers bashes AMD. What a surprise.
He's made factual errors left and right in this one. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his predictions.
I think the point was, a lot of old apps *won't* be recompiled, so they were trying to find out if Rosetta lives up to claims. The issue is that the hardware (P4 CPU) used for the Rosetta test is substantially different from the non-Netbust Intel CPU that will be used in production boxes.
Well, that is the *dev* box, not the actual product, so not sure how much that tells us.
Joe, that sounds like quite the change. If it comes in Q106 on the new socket, I wouldn't be surprised at a more straightforward 4 core setup, especially if it is on 65nm, assuming the new socket provides enough bandwidth.
4 x (512K L2 + L1 + core) + HT/IMC/XBAR on 65nm should be about:
.58 * ( 2 x 147 ) - 5% (or so) = 161mm^2, assuming no L2 cache density improvement.
On 90nm: 280 mm^2.
With 1MB L2 per core:
.58 * (2 x 199) - 3% = 224 mm^2, large but doable on 65nm. A crazy 390mm^2 at 90nm.
-------------------------------
If they can pull off a shared cache, that would be nice, though.
There will be nothing about ORNAND (they said "microprocessor business"), IMO, and one hopes it is to be quad core CPUs, as the 3-core is a disable-1-to-improve-yields/bins thing that will only be done if necessary.
Considering we're not 50% through the year yet, and last fall AMD rose 80% in 3 months, it would be difficult to suggest otherwise.
Paul, you've confused your TLAs again. It's IPF that is entering its "end game phase".
AMD CPG has never been in a stronger competitive position than it is right now. Although, in Q106, that position may become even stronger, if Intel has nothing but Dumbsy to offer the server market.
And yet, opposite to your predictions, the stock is rising despite the flash deal having not been completed and the fact that post-IPO, AMD will still have a loss line from Spansion for a quarter or two.
Seems that you don't have quite the handle you thought you did on the flash deal and its stock impact.
Hints:
- The market is forward looking
- The spinoff affects the risk profile of AMD in a positive way, regardless of whether or not there is a large immediate impact on official earnings
I think the losses in flash this quarter will probably be less than last quarter.
There is the small matter of waiting for the SEC to approve the S-1 before proceeding with the IPO itself.
Roadshow timing will probably be set with the advice of CSFB and Citigroup.
Keith, this is a technical analyst day.
Intel 840EE system goes up in smoke. Literally.
Recall time?
web cam shot (while it lasts)
Found it from Joe@SI: Here it is, while it lasts:
LOL!!!
OMG. Send the jpg to jjaayyxx (or however it's spelled) for posting on the epscontest.com site!
What's a link to the jpeg?
Yeah, that must be why AMD guided Q2 flat to slightly down, instead of seasonally down, Keith. And I'm sure 25-50K DC Opterons at 1-2K a pop have provided no help at all, either. Good job.
Maybe they've been trying to keep the Q106 quad core Opteron a secret from Intel...
How is a quiet period foot dragging? And that isn't "information", btw. LOL. Did you read it? One analyst who has no actual information speculates that such a merger "could be possible"
Oh, well, that settles it, then. Please.
Perhaps the constraint is actually the ATI chipset... ATI just talked about exploding chipset revenues going on this Q... possibly, they are scrambling to make enough.
Ah, oops. I have their rt service.
Slide 13 of this presentation (from your link) is interesting -- http://www.devx.com/assets/amd/13114.pdf
By the way, what happened to the $600 million in stock Spansion is suppose to sell. I have not heard a word about it lately.
You do understand that having filed the S-1 they are now in an SEC-mandated quiet period, right?
Works for me. 5-day plot of Apple stock.
after reading this all I can do is laugh
The market is "laughing" too:
It's a server 'platform' codename, IIRC.
http://www.google.com/search?q=intel+bensley
Sounds like a Galaxy workstation. Cool. Sounds like it will run Windows as well as Solaris.
As we reported in our last roundup, not all Yonah's will be dual core. The ultra low voltage models for the second quarter will be single core. And Intel doesn't yet appear to have decided whether these processors will support Vanderpool (VT) technology.
You missed my point. When Apple sells you a PowerMac (that comes with Tiger) for $2000, it is hardly an accounting "fiction" to assign the bulk of those revenues to hardware, rather than Tiger.
Sounds like Gelsinger is nervous about DC Opteron sales.
If you think Apple could sell Tiger to the masses at, say, $1500 a copy, you're crazy. :)
Did you catch the announcement? They will only allow OSX to run on their Intel Macs.
Thanks. EOM
There's no imbalance.
Who's talking about desktop systems? Quad-core (or triple-core) *Opteron*, for servers and workstations.
The 3-core thing (if it becomes a necessary reality) would be analogous to IBM shipping devices with only 7 active cell cores, instead of the full 8 present on the die. You get to turn off a broken (or underclocking, or power-inefficient) core, post-fab, which boosts your yields (or bins).
apparently are quite good. On paper.
Ruiz mentioned a couple of months back that they were not sure at that point whether to go quad core first, or implement different cores on one die first
Do you have a link for that?
Are you arguing with yourself, Herb? :)