Slashdot Mirror
AMD and IBM Working Together on Future Chips
oogbla writes "There is a story over at news.com which says that AMD is teaming up with IBM for its sub-100 nanometer process and is de-emphasizing its previous relationships in that area. Also seems that the Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) technology they were supposedly getting from Motorola isn't going too well and has caused at least one delay to Barton."
I certainly fell for the hype initially, thinking "AMD + IBM + Hammer?!?!?", alas, not to be.
FWIW IBM also has similar arrangements with Intel.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
There only collibrating on silicon chip processes not chip design. IBM, AMD and MOT already worked
together on 180& 130 nm copper interconnect chips, so this is nothing new. Previously AMD
was working with UMC to develope 65nm 12" wafer
chips. But UMC have never been state of the art
and IBM is much better bet as a partner.
Google doesn't index user sigs, so stop trying to "Google Bomb" with them.
I think a lot of people are misreading (or in /. fashion, not reading) this. Or just not understanding. This does not mean IBM and AMD are working on some new type of processor together (ie no new processor architecture).
What this means is that they will work together on having manufacting technoligies in the future. Fabs and fab equptment are extremely expensive and it is generally hard to move from one manufacturing process to another. This alliance should help shave costs and improve manufacturing quality on the process (I believe it said 0.65 micron) in question. Each will continue to design cpus separately.
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
First, AMD must get their product out. 64, 32, whatever. They have to speed up the chip too. For a same number of model and mhz, I am not sure which is better in term of real speed (AMD vs. Intel), but I have a gut feeling that Intel chip can not be slower (but AMD could). So, that's bad for AMD.
Then, they have to move to more advance manufacturer process quicker. That's how you save cost. Intel has higher mhz chip, has more advance (300mm) fab (translate to lower cost), move to smaller process quicker. What does all this means? In addition, they move faster products out to the market quicker and more frequently.
I would be nervous if I were AMD. They miss the PDA chip space (I may be wrong on this). I think that's where money goes. Create a gig hertz pda then sell it. That's when handheld computer become reality. It's the convegence of wireless phone, pda, multimedia (mp3 player, video player), games, and anything you haven't think of. Ofcourse, it can do messaging, audio conference, and video conference.
Hey, the future is there. Whoever get their first, and make it cheap enough (for all poor comsumer) will win. (technology won't become reality unless they're good enough, but also cheap enough).
AMD is known for its competitive price. Use that war game.
In summary, you can not compete if you can not bring a new, better product out (ok, and enough for us to buy, not just a demo one).
IIRC, AMD never said they were going to stop manufacturing cpu's.
They just weren't going to compete with Intel anymore (Like Cyrix maybe?)
"...and AMD makes great ships"
/.!
3 8
really? then you make great ghosts on
Here's a better link for this story: (moderators, please follow link)
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20030108S00
Mike Cho
free ipod and free gmail!
That's always a good news/bad news type of thing. Still, the fact that IBM/AMD are going to concentrate on SOI tells me that perhaps the newers AMD's will require less power, which can ONLY be a 'good thing'(tm)
Chuck Bucket
free ipod and free gmail!
AMD:
... only cheaper for the 2.6 .... no where else .... hmmmmm
...
$319 Athlon XP 2700 333
$280 Athlon XP 2600
$274 Athlon XP 2600 333
$173 Athlon XP 2400
$130 Athlon XP 2200
$86 Athlon XP 2100
$71 Athlon XP 2000
$70 Athlon XP 1900
$62 Athlon XP 1800
$52 Athlon XP 1700
Intel P4:
$635 - Pentium 4 3.06GHz
$356 - Pentium 4 2.8GHz
$271 - Pentium 4 2.6GHz
$224 - Pentium 4 2.53GHz
$182 Pentium 4 2.4GHz 533MHz
$185 - Pentium 4 2.4GHz 400MHz
$166 - Pentium 4 2.2GHz 400MHz
$168 - Pentium 4 2.26GHz 533MHz
$168 - Pentium 4 2.26GHz
$146 - Pentium 4 2.0GHz Sock 478
$171 - Pentium 4 2.0GHz
$133 Pentium 4 1.9GHz Sock 478
$192 - Pentium 4 1.9GHz
$104 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz Sock 478
$159 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz
$114 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz Sock 478
$132 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz
$106 Pentium 4 1.6GHz Sock 478
$130 - Pentium 4 1.6GHz
$103 Pentium 4 1.5GHz Sock 478
$119 - Pentium 4 1.5GHz
$117 - Pentium 4 1.4GHz Sock 478
$110 - Pentium 4 1.4GHz
Hmmm
I'll stick with my earlier statement
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
You realize that the Pentium II and Pentium III lines use the Pentium Pro architecture, right?
I wasn't surprised when the AMD Athlon pulled out ahead of the Pentium 4, then fell very far behind.
Did I miss something? When did AMD fall "far behind"? Last I checked, the Athlon XP 2800 was pretty on-par with the P4 2.8 GHz even beating it out on many common benchmarks, for example... (Athlon XP 2800 is 550Mhz SLOWER than the P4. That was a whole computer 3 years ago!)
The prohibitive cost of P4's, especially the higher end ones, has pretty much kept AMD processors as the choice for home system builders. Any new super high GHz P4's aren't really in the picture for many people.
Granted, tough times for the industry have hit AMD hard and their development schedule has suffered. For the most part their delays have not been due to poor scaling of the processor core but to financial or manufacturing issues. The previous transition from Athlon to Athlon MP and XP was pretty seamless.
Also, both AMD and Intel have gone through multiple core revisions as the P4 and Athlon step up speed and performance. This pretty much takes revision history as evidence of poor foresight out of the equation also.
The Athlon was not engineered to ramp up well over 1 GHz.
What? That's exactly what it was designed for! The first Athlon, I believe, was either 500 or 600 MHz. This was the first generation which quickly gave way to 700-1000Mhz versions. With the introduction of copper interconnects and manufacturing processes for smaller transistors/dies the Athlon did pretty darn well up to speeds past 1.5GHz with regular introductions of new chips.
For a company that, up until the Athlon, was pretty much a laughable CPU designer it's a nice feat to keep up with Intel over a range of 1.5GHz on the same basic layout. Need I point out that this same speed range was encompassed by BOTH the P3 AND P4 while the Athlon remained pretty much the same? Perhaps you meant to say 2GHz? Well, time will tell on that one but partnerships with the right companies, like IBM and the introduction of the Hammer line will hopefully make the argument a moot point.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Glad you bring those up, as those were two technologies that were superiour but because of actions by key players, weren't as successful as they could/should have been.
OS/2 to this day is a better BASE OS than Windows could ever hope to be. The API was much cleaner and it actually made sense. Now there were certainly some UI issues (sorta liked it or hate it) and the config/setup was never a smooth as it could have been, but it was overall a superiour product.
Ditto MCA, it was a higher performance, scalable, bus that didn't require jumpers to configure, a godsend at the time. If not for IBMs decision to close the arch. and charge royalties (creating the gang of 7 and EISA) we may all be on some variant of the MCA bus right now.
Now don't get me wrong, OS/2 and MCA were not perfect, but they were significantly better than anything at the time and their demise/lack of overall success was not due to their technology.
Combine this with the fact that IBM has a brand spankin' new 300mm fab plant in Fishkill, NY. Given the economic downturn, I imagine IBM would be able to give AMD a VERY good deal on manufacturing AMD's chips. This would take up the plant's capacity and give AMD a much better manufacturing partner than UMC. After all, a fab plant on the ground is better than 2 on the drawing board.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Most of the problems with AMD systems ARE due to motherboard/chipset or Power Supply. Ever since AMD started putting up their recommended parts list, I generally tell people to visit them when they're building AMD based systems. In fact, my latest system's about the only one I've built or consulted on where the motherboard wasn't on AMD's recommended list (Aopen AK75 with Kingston PC2700 ram).
I will say that I generally tell novice builders to be wary with Athlons because there's always a chance they can crush the die by incorrectly attaching their heatsinks. I'm hoping Hammer'll fix this with a nice nickel slug over the die, but beyond this, I've been using AMD processors since the 5x86 100mHz days and I've always had good luck in my machines and the ones I've built and helped build.
So, when's lunch?