Wbmw, re: AMD and Intel production processes.
Re: I didn't marginalize [the SOI and better strain] features of AMD's process
You did. You still do.
Re: Strained silicon is a benefit, but compared to what?
That's not relevant question, as this question should have refered to my statement that current AMD's strained Si is has BETTER than Intel's (performance and power wise).
Re: Yes SOI is costly, and it affects yields! I'm glad you recognize it in this response...but it didn't stop you from calling Intel's low-yielding earlier.
That's another subject, plus I don't recall mentioning this either. I do recall questioning you a while back if you had data for your factless statement that Intel has better yields than AMD. That statement is still factless. You never showed the data, or claimed you had any for that matter. So why make a statement like that?? Anyways, I also think Intel's method strain causes more yield loss compared with AMD (for this I have no data though. Back to the current discussion.
Re: I say part of the reason Pentium M reaches such low power is not because AMD's process sucks, but because Intel's process is very good at delivering high performance and low power if the design is done the right way.
I stated that 'Intel has a good process', but question if it's the best. I clearly think not, and base my conclusion on facts. You almost never show data or facts regarding this type of discussion and this is no exception. Surely SOI and better strain are facts that do support the notion that AMD has a better process. You in fact have no significant facts at all. Pentium M is designed for mobile ONLY (K8 was designed for servers first). Pentium M's current FP performance is mediocre, and even it's INT performance is not leading at all. So your conclusion that because of Pentium M is performing OK Intel's process is the best is flawed.
re: I have also asked you to refer to public data on the drive strength vs. leakage of Intel's process vs. AMD's.
You did not; especially not in this discussion. I saw the graphs though a while back. I found them impressive but apparently without any consequence whatsoever. So far slidewear.
re: I have repeatedly pointed you to the fact that Prescott was a frequency driven design with high power transistors used throughout
Yeah, so? Everyone knows. It's a bad design for Intel's current process.
As for Montecito, the same source that claims it will be lower frequency (The Inq) also claims that engineers have been taken off the design to fund Xeon design teams, which would explain why the design would fall short of target.
Bla, bla. Montecito's design was cast in stone before the engineers were asked to join mainstream cpu design teams.
re: Lastly, Dothan now clocks as high as 2.26GHz at a 27W TDP, which is 33% higher frequency than Banias at 1.7GHz and 24.5W TDP. That's not a bad boost for a power constrained design.
Dothan is not Banias; they're two different designs EVEN though Dothan is to a good extent a shrink of Banias.
re: Aspects of APM involve transferring process steps exactly from the development fab to the production fab... That's a fundamental similarity to Intel's Copy Exactly. My point was that Intel's methods for automation do the same things as AMD's APM, and they have been in place for years.
Yeah, yeah, minor aspects. APM has in general terms nothing to do with Copy Exactly. Considering your reply you probably even know that by now. APM is rather broadly patented, and AMD is recognized for leading in this area by the industry. Your words that "AMD copied Intel's Copy Exactly" show exactly how little you know about this subject.
re: I see that you will argue for SOI and DSL until you're blue in the face, without showing a shred of proof. Not that it matters, because the results will speak for themselves.
SOI and DSL are facts. You have none.
Rink: I'm not going to bother with your other statements. Maybe someone else will.
Wbmw: Sure, you are free to toss out FUD on Intel's process, and when someone confronts you with it, you start pouting like a little girl.
It would probably have been pointless because I'm talking to you.
Regards,
Rink
