Replies to post #36140 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Elmer Phud]

Klaus

Netburst Silicon is way cheaper to make than Core 2.

Why would you think that?

[wbmw]

Re: Netburst Silicon is way cheaper to make than Core 2.

From a purely die size perspective, the single core Cedar Mill processors were ~82mm^2, while Core 2 processors are ~145mm^2 with 4M of cache and ~110mm^2 for 2M of cache. However, the comparison should have been between dual core Presler Netburst microprocessors, which were two ~82mm^2 die in a package, which is slightly better than a single monolithic 145mm^2 die, but probably a bit more in package costs. I'd say the costs are probably equal (and certainly not *way* better).

Re: The gap could close if Intel would continue to make MCP-Quads in 45nm, which is quite expensive.

Two Wolfdale die (at <100mm^2) in an MCM are going to be far, FAR cheaper than a monolithic Barcelona core at ~275mm^2. And even package costs aren't going to bring Intel anywhere near these costs.

Of course, we are talking about 45nm Intel die vs. 65nm AMD die, but that's simply how things will compare in H1 2008, and I'm guessing H2 2008 as well.

[Sarmad]

>> AMD has signigicantly higher cost of silicon.

Can you give any detail or insight on why that is ? Is it scale of production ? Is it the fact of Fab 30 being on 200mm 90 nm for another 9 months ?

What about at 300mm 65 nm, would AMD still have a cost dis-advantage ?

Would you expect a different yield between the two companies for 300mm 65 nm ? And do you have a feel for which one has the better yield ?