65nm where art thou?

C

chrisf6969

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
9,011
I was waiting to see the 65nm chips. Where are they?

I thought we'd be seeing some easy 3+ghz air overclocks on X2's with it, but lack of chips & lack of news, I'm guessing = bad news.

I guess 65nm isn't working well yet?

I haven't seen ANYTHING on it yet? Normally someone over at XS's or somewhere gets one, where are thou 65nm chips?
 
i dunno where they are, but I can tell you that i'm dying to see them out with availability!!

these things will really, really help AMD in the performance/watt and price/performance categories, and if they are priced right, i'll go AMD (i'm an ultra, ultra, ultra budget user, so these have to be sub 80 bucks i'm talking about).

AMD has to get cheap dual cores out soon, the E4300 coming in January is looming, and looking like the true chip to buy if AMD cant undercut by a good enough margin with 65nm
 
when are they suppose to come out in the e-tailer channels?

i am rdy to upgrade my FX to dual cores.
 
chrisf6969 said:
I was waiting to see the 65nm chips. Where are they?

I thought we'd be seeing some easy 3+ghz air overclocks on X2's with it, but lack of chips & lack of news, I'm guessing = bad news.

I guess 65nm isn't working well yet?

I haven't seen ANYTHING on it yet? Normally someone over at XS's or somewhere gets one, where are thou 65nm chips?
Click to expand...

Everything is fine , don't you know that ?! :eek: ;)
 
RadiationMan said:
Isn't Chartered, TSMC, and UMC helping AMD with 65nm production?
Click to expand...

and IBM.

5 heads are normally better than 1.

But Intel still has about a year head start on them with 65nm.
 
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=132953
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=132951

This was easy for me. 55C full load. Just me with current tech. Don't need 65nm for something I already got. A cool cpu on air. I'd wait for K8L or something else. May actouly buy that ATX board for my core. I really need a bloody mATX that will OC like the bigger ones. Why can't they make a mATX NF-M2 for intel. >_> Thats the only thing thats holding me back. The form factor.

http://s38.photobucket.com/albums/e113/Serge84/?action=view&current=X7.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch3
 
I think your right, so far I haven't found anything that talks about TSMC, and UMC working with AMD for 65nm production on CPUs.
 
considering that those wattage numbers are measuring the whole system, that looks pretty damn good for two reasons:

1. the amd is running at a higher mhz and has similar power draw
2. the nforce chipset draws considerably more power than 975x.. around 10-15w iirc :(
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
considering that those wattage numbers are measuring the whole system, that looks pretty damn good for two reasons:

1. the amd is running at a higher mhz and has similar power draw
2. the nforce chipset draws considerably more power than 975x.. around 10-15w iirc :(
Click to expand...

They noted there were differences in the system (but didn't state them all) So there could be other variables that we don't know about (PSU - efficiency, etc..) that could have affected the wattage.

I'll be glad to see an official review in English. I'd even be happy to see one in Engrish. :)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
2. the nforce chipset draws considerably more power than 975x.. around 10-15w iirc :(
Click to expand...
I swear, for all the wattage recent NForce boards consume, there's a 40W lightbulb hidden somewhere in the silicon...
 
Rabid Badger said:
Where are these rumors?
Click to expand...

Altough 65nm chips burn less power ( the voltage is still too high IMO ) you need to consider the fact that it's die size got 40% smaller.

As a result you may have the same w/mm^2 or more => running hotter is normal.
 
savantu said:
As a result you may have the same w/mm^2 or more => running hotter is normal.
Click to expand...
hey... funny you mention that. the power density went up for 90nm too. it wasn't really "hotter" ;)

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1026710774&postcount=8
(note the date. it makes me lol)

thermal density is important, but not the end all factor in temps. if the cpu <-> ihs contact is good, the difference should be minimal... and if not... well, the gains from removing the lid will be even greater! :cool:
 
Intel had big problems with 90nm, they probably learned some tricks to help them with 65nm.

AMD used SOI at 90nm which supposedly kept them from having the problems that Intel did with leakage. But many said that it was just going to help them get one more step but they'd hit the wall when they got to 65nm.

Maybe, AMD is having similar problems that Intel had at 90nm?
 
chrisf6969 said:
Intel had big problems with 90nm...
Click to expand...

wtf are you smoking ? :rolleyes:

Intel's 90nm process was second to none.The Prescott's design ( 70 million logic transistors ) is to blame for its high power consumption , the process was superb in any respect.
 
The problem was netburst, not really their 90nm process. Though, I would not say that Intel's 90nm was "second to none".
 
visaris said:
The problem was netburst, not really their 90nm process. Though, I would not say that Intel's 90nm was "second to none".
Click to expand...

Yes it was.

Intel's plain bulk SS vs. AMDs S-PD-SOI with DSL on 90nm

100nA/um@1V
Intel: 1.15 / 0.67 mA/um
AMD: 0.96 / 0.48 mA/um

Intel (P1262) advantage 20% NFET and 40% PFET.
 
well, the Dothan processors were 90nm...... and they showed the best thermal/power consumption of any processors out...

so yea, I guess I agree that it was the shit netburst that did Intel in at 90nm....

and remember, that even at 65nm, Netburst is horrible in power consumption and heat... so clearly the design of the processor is more important than the manufacturing process.
 
AMD's SOI, COMS, Cu, SS, DSL 90nm was the best process ever made. Even matched intels 65nm tech until conroe changed all that. SOI has a size limit in manufacturing is its only disadvantage. Unless AMD makes breakthroughs past 65nm. 45nm will be a much harder thing to do.
 
visaris said:
The problem was netburst, not really their 90nm process. Though, I would not say that Intel's 90nm was "second to none".
Click to expand...

No way:) Even Netburst wasn't the problem, simply put, the Prescott core was. Had Intel stuck with Northwood's lower latency and 20 stages things might have been different until Conroe launched. They traded blows with AMD as the battle was App dependent. X2 turned the tide completely to AMD's favor.

It's not really AMD's 90nm but IBM/AMDs 90nm and yes it was late as well. AMD paid IBM 400 million to fix it.
 
I was told today (from someone within AMD's NPRP group..), that Brisbane won't hit retail in time for Christmas.. sooo it looks like NulloModo may be off the hook..
wink.gif
 
mpcamer1220 said:
I was told today (from someone within AMD's NPRP group..), that Brisbane won't hit retail in time for Christmas.. sooo it looks like NulloModo may be off the hook..
wink.gif
Click to expand...

Theres no 939 65nm refreshes is there? :(
 
RadiationMan said:
Isn't Chartered, TSMC, and UMC helping AMD with 65nm production?
Click to expand...
Actually Chartered has many patents n the 45nm range, AMD and IBM just presented at International Electron Device Meeting
 
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2889&p=8

appears not to OC very much or just as much as the 90nm parts

AnandTech said:
Technically in-line with roadmaps, AMD just introduced and announced shipment of its first 65nm cores: codenamed Brisbane. Availability is another story entirely, as it's looking like we won't see any real quantities of these things until Q1 2007. Right now AMD's Brisbane chips are strictly OEM only and AMD wasn't able to give us an indication of when to expect retail/channel availability.
Click to expand...
 
I've been reading on some of this stuff, I would post wesbite information but some of it I dont deem worth or it could be the fact I dont know how reliable they are. Though a lot of companies are breaking ground on 45nm processes, Chartered's own website says some stuff about IBM's spectacular process capability. Along side of Infineon and Samsungs, whatever. I would recall though as I was reading, a website question Intels 45nm process and how its coming along. The website article was dated September 29th a long ways ago.


-Sorry if I sound a bit dull.

To the poster above, someone at Xtremesystems got theirs to 3.1Ghz on stock cooling.
 
Arcygenical said:
Anandtech? Hello? First graph?

"What we're looking at here is the core temperature of the 2nd core in all of the CPUs, under full load, as reported by Core Temp."

Your X2 5000 is loading at 76 degrees?
Click to expand...

im not talking about the graph, they could of done a better job using a different system than what they did there even a censor under heatsink would of been better than that
 
etjr said:
im not talking about the graph, they could of done a better job using a different system than what they did there even a censor under heatsink would of been better than that
Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying... Any real benchmark should flag 76'c as a warning... On stock no less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top