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."

86 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. This should happen... by mschoolbus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am quite sure that IBM and AMD teamed together could easily give Intel a run for speed and technology. Alone IBM and AMD have some amazing technologies that have some amazing potential (like IBM's 64bit PPC chip coming soon).

    1. Re:This should happen... by nattt · · Score: 4, Funny

      All we need is Apple to put them in Macs....

      --
      -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
    2. Re:This should happen... by spiro_killglance · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:This should happen... by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 4, Funny

      All we need is Apple to put them in Macs....
      Yes, wouldn't that be great? :) (I think so)

    4. Re:This should happen... by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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
    5. Re:This should happen... by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am quite sure that IBM and AMD teamed together could easily give Intel a run for speed and technology.

      It's not that Intel doesn't know how to get more speed, it's that faster designs are unimplementable because of power consumption issues. The 3GHz P4 is pushing the limits of what's possible, and uses an outrageous amount of power. I'm sure we'll see faster P4s, but every 10% increase in speed will be paid for with a 15% higher power requirement. AMD is going to have exactly the same problem.

      To get significant gains, the complexity of the x86 needs to be trimmed way back, so much that it's likely easier to just start from scratch.

    6. Re:This should happen... by timeOday · · Score: 2
      I'm sure we'll see faster P4s, but every 10% increase in speed will be paid for with a 15% higher power requirement. AMD is going to have exactly the same problem. To get significant gains, the complexity of the x86 needs to be trimmed way back, so much that it's likely easier to just start from scratch.
      They already did start from scratch, but the Itanium uses almost twice the power of a Xeon at 130W!

      (Did you mean complexity of the ISA itself or the chip?)

    7. Re:This should happen... by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

      (Did you mean complexity of the ISA itself or the chip?)

      The ISA, though it's more than just instruction set. For example, floating point math is done internally at 80 bits--16 bits higher than is standard. There's no good reason to do that, other than "that's how we've always done it."

  2. I hope this doesn't mean... by intermodal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...that i'll never get a ThinkPad with a TransMeta chip in it. I love IBM laptop hardware, and Transmeta seems to have a grasp of what should be in a laptop processor, but whether or not it will ever become a reality one has to wonder.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:I hope this doesn't mean... by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      This has nothing to do with IBM's pc (including ThinkPad) business. They are free to use whatever they think best (which usually means Intel, though not purely for performance reasons). This announcment is simply IBM Semiconductor getting a new customer. Any issues with Transmeta are the providence of Transmeta and PC OEM's (which includes the PC arm of IBM).

  3. Motorola is Slow??? by SpamJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

    What, Motorola caused a delay for someone it was supplying something to? That's crazy! Motorola is never *achem*G5*achem* late! I'm sure that it's just a big misunderstanding on AMD's side.

    Then again maybe it's the year of the Laptop for AMD too!

    1. Re:Motorola is Slow??? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Motorola is never *achem*G5*achem* late!

      You're only late if the product is shipped...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  4. wow by greechneb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess this means, that there might actually be a big computer manufacturer that will back AMD. I'm sure AMD execs are drooling of the possibilities of having someone in their corner against Intel.

    1. Re:wow by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      I guess this means, that there might actually be a big computer manufacturer that will back AMD

      No it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the PC portion of IBM. This is simply IBM Semi helping out AMD in the manufacture (process and design) of their chips. There is nothing to imply that IBM will suddenly start switching over to AMD cpus.

  5. IBM slow... AMD... hot by Turbyne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From some articles I read in the past, IIRC, IBM is known for having some of the slowest management progression out there. I hope AMD isn't getting itself into an Apple/MOT stalemate.

    --
    ~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
    1. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IBM is simply offering production services to AMD, this is not another AIM alliance or anything like that. So IBM mgmt slowness should not be an issue at all. AMD simply is another IBM Semi customer.

      As for IBM mgmt, well yes, in many ways IBM is the poster child for the slow and ponderous company. However, when they decide to do something (and do it right, well as much as can be expected) they can be the unstoppable force. RS/6000 and ThinkPad are two excellent examples.

    2. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by Lt+Razak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh yea, sum up a billion dollar company in a couple sentences. At least their failures are still more amazing than all of your accomplishments put together.

    3. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by kpansky · · Score: 2

      Well. You surely are misinformed. OS/2 was a pretty decent operating system. It still lives on today on more than 70% of desktops as Windows NT/2000/XP/etc. And MCA? It was so much better than ISA that its ideas were re-implemented and modified by people who didn't want to pay licensing fees from IBM to use it. The result of the MCA stimulus: PCI. And everyone knows that these aforementioned technology have no redeeming qualities.

      --

      --Kevin
    4. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by roguerez · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the PC, what a whopper that was!

    5. Re:IBM slow... AMD... hot by binaryDigit · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  6. good news/bad news? by herrd0kt0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to me, the most interesting part of the article is this: "The deal also marks a break in an alliance between AMD and Taiwan's United Microelectronics, a foundry that makes chips for other companies Earlier, AMD and UMC agreed to jointly develop 65 nanometer processes and build a fabrication facility together. AMD also said it would use UMC for excess factory capacity if necessary."

    at first glance, it might seem like it's bad that AMD is breaking business ties. but the last sentence indicates that the option to tap UMC is still available, which to me means that the relations between the two must not have soured that badly.

    looking at the big picture, it seems that AMD has made a pretty decent business move upwards, scaling up as they need, and acquiring a nice, big name to throw around as good PR.

    which is not to say that it'll make AMD successful. but you know how dippy people are when it comes to stocks. Joe Trader who was "like, wtf?! UMC? wtf UMC?" might be more like "miammiam, IBM. mmmn, juicy goodness."

  7. Good for everybody but Intel and UMC by Hadean · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's another link to the EE Times: http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20030108S0038 (care of [H]ard|OCP)

    Hopefully this means that the next CPUs out of AMD won't be able to warm up the apartment come winter.

    Generally this means that AMD won't be working with United Microelectronics (UMC) anymore... a contract that was just recently made (January). (EE Times hints that IBM has been "muscling in" on UMC's turf lately - ouch).

    The deal apparently marks an end to AMD's arrangement with United Microelectronics Corp., a Taiwan-based foundry with which AMD was to develop process technology and build a 300-mm fabrication facility in Singapore. Asked about that earlier partnership, an AMD spokesman said the two sides "are amicably winding up their joint development relationship."

  8. Exclusive? Not. by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Informative
    When I read about this, yesterday, the indication was that IBM and AMD would be working together, not against Intel or anything so interesting. It's a simple technology sharing arrangement, which benefits AMD, allowing them keep costs lower by using IBM or jointly developed materials technology. Where Intel can do it all in-house (at least for now).

    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
  9. Score! by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    Let's all hope that they can come up with a next generation processor that Apple will use for Mac OS X.

    --

    Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    1. Re:Score! by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Why buy softwhere when you can use open source for free?

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    2. Re:Score! by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Ok, so I'll admin the the Gimp UI isn't as good as PhotoShop. But were are talking about version 1.?. Was PhotoShop *.* the same as PhotoShop 7.0? No. Was Mac OS *.* as good as Mac OS X, no. Will Gimp 2-* be as good as PhotoShop 7? Maybe not but it's sure to get better with time. And if you still don't like Gimp, then download the source and make it the way you want.

      [/rant]

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    3. Re:Score! by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Can you suck my dick for fat pice of shit? If you need help call your mom, she sucks my dick all the time.

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

  10. Wasn't AMD a part of IBM? by swv3752 · · Score: 2

    Didn't IBM spin off AMD as seperate company long ago like it more recently did with Lexmark?

    --
    Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  11. AMD vs Intel by Elbereth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's interesting how all the hardware sites lambasted Intel for the design of the Pentium 4, because it didn't have the raw speed of the AMD Athlon or Pentium 3. What made this all rather amusing to me, however, was that these people weren't around to see the evolution of the 386 vs 486, 486 vs Pentium, and, to a lesser extent, the 286 vs 386. In each of these situations, the previous generation of chip was able to eek a few more cycles over the next generation... in the beginning of the next generation's run! Intel has a very strong history of designing chips that ramp up very well (except for their one CPU engineering failure, the Pentium Pro, which was too ambitiously designed).

    I wasn't surprised when the AMD Athlon pulled out ahead of the Pentium 4, then fell very far behind. The Athlon was not engineered to ramp up well over 1 GHz. AMD was very foolish to race to that point, seeing as how long it took them to get working silicon at just 2 GHz.

    I'm not saying that I bought a Pentium 4, just that I knew it would eventually overtake the Athlon. I'm quite happy with a cheap Athlon, myself. Semiconductors is a soap opera for nerds. That's why I read The Register, not EE Times.

    My guess is that there's going to be a lot more consolodation in the semiconductor and memory world. I bet Micron, AMD, Motorola, and Apple are all going to end up merging, buying out, and/or disappearing in the next few months. Maybe HP will buy them all.

    1. Re:AMD vs Intel by shepd · · Score: 2

      >was that these people weren't around to see the evolution of the 386 vs 486, 486 vs Pentium, and, to a lesser extent, the 286 vs 386.

      In all of these cases (286, 386, 486, and Pentium) AMD beat Intel in raw MHz, and often in speed as well.

      Sorry to say that, but it is true.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:AMD vs Intel by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      Actually the 286 -> 386 transition is similar to the P3 -> P4 in that clock for clock, the "older" generation was faster than the "newer". The 386 was a massive jump in features though (full 32bit, v86 mode, real protected mode, etc) that no one really cared.

    3. Re:AMD vs Intel by feldsteins · · Score: 2

      I bet Micron, AMD, Motorola, and Apple are all going to end up merging, buying out, and/or disappearing in the next few months.

      I don't see Apple in the same basket as these others.

      Maybe HP will buy them all.

      HP buying Apple? Seems unlikely to say the least. Again, I don't see Apple as being in the same basket. I could see Apple entering into interesting agreements with AMD, for example, but I cannot see any of the above-named companies actually either being bought buy or buying Apple.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    4. Re:AMD vs Intel by cheezedawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry to say that, but it is true

      No, thats not even close to true. It wasn't until Athlon that AMD could top an Intel processor in performance, and that didn't last very long either.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    5. Re:AMD vs Intel by shess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Intel has a very strong history of designing chips that ramp up very well (except for their one CPU engineering failure, the Pentium Pro, which was too ambitiously designed).

      You're kidding, right? At the time, the company I was with was targetting Pentium 133 as a baseline, but my development hardware was a PPro 150 overclocked to 166Mhz. It kicked the Pentium 133's ass.

      I think what you maybe meant to say was the the PPRo was too expensive, and ahead of the needs of the broader market.

      And "one" engineering failure? The i860/i960 were hyped as a "supercomputer on a chip", but were horrid to code general purpose stuff for (that's why they pretty much ended up as embedded processors in printers and the like). The iAPX 432 from the early 80's was a fairly impressive CPU designed to support object-oriented work, and it flopped badly.

      Heck, even the i286 wasn't so great - it had virtual memory capabilities which the broad market couldn't make use of, yet, but they were only barely acceptable for more sophisticated systems (aka Unix), and that with hacks. The i386 was where things really got interesting...

    6. Re:AMD vs Intel by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't until Athlon that AMD could top an Intel processor in performance

      I think that you're not going far enough back. Remember that AMD offered 386/40 when Intel stopped at 33 and AMD also had 486/120 when Intel stopped at 100. So AMD does have a history of offering higher performing processors (not necessarily faster clock for clock, but a part that is faster than anything that Intel had in the same family). I remember that someone also had a 286/20 when Intel maxed at 12, but I can't remember if that was AMD or someone else.

    7. Re:AMD vs Intel by sean23007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope you misspoke when you said Apple would merge or disappear. Apple isn't going anywhere, as can be seen by their repeated strong showings at their release party conferences and on Wall Street. Apple is a strong company that is in no danger of being purchased. The only thing I can foresee that resembles what you are talking about is if Apple were to buy out Motorola or Micron and so be able to manufacture their own processors and/or memory units. But the next revision of the PowerPC processor went to IBM, not Motorola, and IBM and Apple will not consolidate into one company. Perhaps if Apple bought Motorola (almost impossible), they would start making computers with and integrated G4 that perhaps isn't upgradeable, but runs cooler in less space than a socket processor. A good step for their iMacs and Powerbooks, if they don't do it already. They can't really do the same for memory, as people will always want to upgrade their RAM. They just can't do away with DIMM slots.

      In short, your vision of consolidation might not be wrong, but I think you have chosen the wrong companies. AMD and Apple have business alliances with IBM, a very strong company with little to no interest in consolidation with either company. Motorola is into too many things to be bought, but isn't doing well enough to buy anyone. Of all the options, they are the most likely to go under, but I wouldn't count on it. And Micron can continue to sell RAM as long as people continue making software that needs it. They probably aren't in that great a danger, especially in the next few months

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    8. Re:AMD vs Intel by Octagon+Most · · Score: 4, Funny
      "When a decent OS was stuck on it, it would fly."

      When will that be?

    9. Re:AMD vs Intel by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      That's only true until people take up the ew features

      That's true, I should have said that the 286 was faster at running the 16bit apps that existed at the time. It wasn't until 32bit apps became more prevelant, and OS's could take advantage of v86/protected mode did the 386 really show it's true capabilities.

    10. Re:AMD vs Intel by juuri · · Score: 2

      Apple is a strong company that is in no danger of being purchased.

      Incorrect. Apple is in a very risky position where a hostile takeover could happen. Right now you could basically have Apple for near free, thanks to their stock price and their easily obtainable 4bill in near cash.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    11. Re:AMD vs Intel by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 2

      Actually, the original poster was correct, at least sort of.

      AMD did produce 286, 386 and 486 processors that were faster than any comperable chips that Intel ever produce (16MHz 286's if my memory serves, 40MHz 386s and 133MHz 486s). However, they did so after Intel had already released their next generation of chips.

      Still, AMD did have the speed advantage at one point in time. When AMD brought out their 386DX40, the fastest chips that Intel had was their 486DX25, and AMD's 40MHz 386 was almost always faster than Intel's 25MHz 486, even though the 486 was faster clock for clock. Intel soon bumped the 486 up to 33MHz, and than it was more or less toss-up between the two, though AMD gained a lot of market share since their chips and the supporting motherboards were a LOT cheaper.

      The 233MHz K6 was also, on average, marginally faster than the fastest Intel chips (the PentiumMMX 200 and PPro 200MHz) when it was released. However, that point became rather moot since it took AMD about 4 months to produce more than trivial quantities of K6's at that speed grade, and Intel brought out their PII at 233-300MHz only a few weeks after the K6 was first released.

    12. Re:AMD vs Intel by shepd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, you got an interesting score for that?

      Let's see...

      K6 line... beat intel's pentium line in Mhz handily. My friend has a 500 Mhz chip in his machine. Nice and fast...
      486 Line... My AMD DX-100 would like to have a talk with you about what you're saying.
      386 Line... Uhhh... AMD 386 DX-40 anyone?
      286 Line... the top notch processors had whose stamp on them? I seem to recall AMD logos on pretty much all of them.

      In sort, you are way off the mark. I'll provide links and proof if you want.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    13. Re:AMD vs Intel by tonytung · · Score: 2, Informative
      (except for their one CPU engineering failure, the Pentium Pro, which was too ambitiously designed)


      You realize that the Pentium II and Pentium III lines use the Pentium Pro architecture, right?
    14. Re:AMD vs Intel by RealErmine · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!
    15. Re:AMD vs Intel by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      The Intel 8088 ran at 4.77mhz. I thought that Intel had one that ran at 8mhz, or maybe I'm just remembering the 8086. I do remember that someone had an 8088-II as well (or was that a 8086-2, hmmm, my mind gets fuzzier over the years).

    16. Re:AMD vs Intel by jgalun · · Score: 2

      I hope you misspoke when you said Apple would merge or disappear. Apple isn't going anywhere, as can be seen by their repeated strong showings at their release party conferences and on Wall Street.

      I am not sure what you mean by "repeated strong showings...on Wall Street." Apple's stock is trading at barely above the value of their cash reserves, which shows you that Wall Street has very little faith in Apple stock indeed. There was a brief (but massive) run-up in Apple stock in 1998 and 1999, but other than that the stock has been a failure over the long term - selling at the same price today as it was 12 years ago.

      And I'm an Apple stockholder, unfortunately.

    17. Re:AMD vs Intel by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what I don't get about those people lambasting Intel for the P4 design. The long pipeline of the P4 was a *design decision* It had certain negatives (huge pipeline flush penalties, insane interrupt and system call latencies, high power consumption, etc) and certain positives (extremely high clock speeds, massive bandwidth and throughput). At the end of the day, what matters is the end result. The P4 is simply faster than any other chip in its class, and is very competitive with a lot of chips (50-70% the FPU performance of a Power4) that are way out of its league. This is how engineering works, plain and simple.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    18. Re:AMD vs Intel by be-fan · · Score: 2

      As for K6, it beat Intel in MHz, but K6 existed during the early PII era, and was regularly ridiculed for its inner city high-school FPU capabilities.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    19. Re:AMD vs Intel by kma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intel has a very strong history of designing chips that ramp up very well (except for their one CPU engineering failure, the Pentium Pro, which was too ambitiously designed).

      While your overall thesis is correct, your parenthetical diss of the PPro is ass-backwards. The PPro core is the same core that has been tweaked into the PIII. It had an approximately seven-year productive span, during which it was very competitive, although it was considered a monstrosity in its original incarnation as the Pentium Pro. I.e., the PPro is exhibit A in your argument, not some sort of exception to be excused.

    20. Re:AMD vs Intel by be-fan · · Score: 2

      I agree with the original poster. According to this the K6 and PII were both released in 1997. I remember debating whether to buy a PII or K6 at the time, actually. While the K6 matched some early PIIs in integer performance, I remember reading many Boot magazine articles ridiculing the K6's phenomenally bad, not-fully-pipelined FPU. As the PII line progressed, you basically only got a K6 if you never executed an FPU operation (ie. played a game!)

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    21. Re:AMD vs Intel by Zzootnik · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but you're totally whigged out on that one.

      Umm...I've gotta flop this one back....You're the one with the crack-pipe now, buddy- The K6's were dogs...Depending on what you use them for...

      I remember when they were still on the market, those in the Gaming mode (Read: keep floating performance as high as possible so all the best games will run quick!!!), people stayed away from those K6's like the plague...They'd stutter and complain and be outrun by a p2-300, a hundred mhz below the K6... I really had no love for them...(Thank god they finally got a kick arse fpu! yaaa, AMD!)

      That said, I also have to say that we still use a fleet of K6's at work to do basic drawing/composition tasks....They aren't the speediest things in the world, but under bsd, their speed isn't all that bad...
      So "What you use them for" really does matter...

      But for Me (and many others), the K6's were dogs-

      --
      Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
    22. Re:AMD vs Intel by cheezedawg · · Score: 2

      As other people have pointed out, you have to remember the timeline of these products. According to AMD's corporate history, they were founded just to take other peoples stuff and try to improve it- they didn't innovate anything. So Intel would release a chip, AMD would fart around with it for a while to try to improve it, and by the time AMD released their 'improved' product, Intel was ready with the next generation. It wasn't until recently that AMD started to branch out a little on their own (with PC processors, that is).

      K6 line... beat intel's pentium line in Mhz handily
      The K6 line never got close to the pentiums in terms of actual performance. And what happened to the "MHz doesn't matter!" drum that AMD has been beating for the past few years?

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    23. Re:AMD vs Intel by cheezedawg · · Score: 2

      I hate to break it to you, but AMD is not doing so well. Just 6 months ago, Toms hardware pretty much declared the Athlon dead ("Our extensive tests give the impression that the Athlon design is already a bit outdated and is now reaching its limits."). It took a kludge for them to get up to the 2800, and judging by how long it is taking, they are having problems producing at quantity.

      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

      And last I checked, the XP 2800 still wasn't in stores (check pricewatch if you don't believe me), and Intel has had a 3 GHz chip with HT on the market for 6 weeks.

      The prohibitive cost of P4's, especially the higher end ones, has pretty much kept AMD processors as the choice for home system builders.

      If you compare the prices of the highest speed Athlon on pricewatch vs the equivalent performing P4 (in this case, the Athlon 2600 and the 2.6 GHx P4), you might notice that the P4 is actually about $10 cheaper.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    24. Re:AMD vs Intel by be-fan · · Score: 2

      http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/19980416/perform ance-02.html
      In everything from Quake II to 3D Studio, the 233 MHz K6 is about half as fast as the 233 MHz PII. I don't know why the Sandra benchmarks are different, but they are the exception, not the rule. Besides, Sandra is an artificial benchmark, not a real world one like 3D Studio or SPEC.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    25. Re:AMD vs Intel by oconnorcjo · · Score: 2
      It's interesting how all the hardware sites lambasted Intel for the design of the Pentium 4, because it didn't have the raw speed of the AMD Athlon or Pentium 3.

      Actually the Athlon was designed to compete with the Pentium II/III and the Athlon has scaled significantly better than the Pentium III. Intel may never have released the pentium 4 if it was not for the fact that people were not buying into titanium and the Pentium III was weak in comparison to an Athlon. What AMD was SUPPOSED to have out by now was the Clawhammer/Sledgehammer/Opteron/Whatever. But for whatever reasons, they are having problems. I hope AMD releases this to market soon because once it does, Intel might well be in a terrible pickle to the benefit of the consumer. I am very impressed with how well the Athlon has scaled considering how old the design is and am hoping to see AMD's 64 bit chip (which they bet thier future on) come out soon.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
    26. Re:AMD vs Intel by addaon · · Score: 2

      We lambast Intel not because we don't realize that the long pipeline was a tradeoff, but because we disagree with the tradeoff. Equal or better performance could certainly have been achieved with a shorter pipeline. The tradeoff was Intel selecting marketing power over computing power... from the consumers point of view, a bad decision for a computer.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    27. Re:AMD vs Intel by be-fan · · Score: 2

      The K6 never overtook the PII line in megahertz, which was what its real competitor was (chronologically). And while 3DNow! was significantly faster, it was no replacement for real FPU power (useful for scientific applications and 3D modeling) and was largely useless unless you were running one of the few applications directly coded for 3DNow!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  12. Wasn't it Apple... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2

    ...that blamed Motorola for the delays with the G4 chips, as well as the lack of big speed increases? What's going on with Motorola these days? They seem to overpromise and underdeliver a lot.

  13. Re:This should happen (more commentary)... by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    IBM, of course, will also benefit. The company rivals Intel in semiconductor research, but its chip sales are only one-eighth as large. Licensing its technology, and manufacturing chips for other companies, opens revenue streams for Big Blue.

    Licensing technology out to others is exactly what IBM should be doing in this case. It helps the industry and that will, in turn, help them. This is great for IBM in the short term and the long term.

    --naked

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
  14. Uh ohh... Remember Cyrix? by tstoneman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know it's not exactly the same, but remember what IBM did to Cyrix? They licensed Cyrix's chips and then undercut them in price, which I believe led to the eventual demise of their chip.

    It seems as though making a deal with IBM is almost as risky as making a deal with Microsoft, although I guess dealing with Microsoft has an even worse track record (Sybase with SQL Server, IBM with OS/2, Sendo with their phone stuff).

    1. Re:Uh ohh... Remember Cyrix? by benzapp · · Score: 2

      Of course, the first company to do this was NexGen and their Nx586. NexGen never had their own fabrication plants, so they got IBM to do it. Cyrix didn't always do this, they only licensed some of their

      Also, the IBM 6x86 was typically a better processor than the Cyrix. It definitely could be overclocked much more easily.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  15. This alliance should work .... by mustangdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting
    IBM's services and technology don't come cheap, though. Companies typically hand over several million dollars--even hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the deal--to IBM under these alliances, according to sources.


    Even after paying hundreds of millions to IBM, AMD should still be able to undercut Intel's outrageous pricing and sell chips of equal or greater quality (ie, chips that have a detailed instruction set, not chips that just do nothing fast) and still make a decent profit .... although I'm not too keen on the idea of AMD's prices going up because of IBM charging them out the ying-yang for research ... but the positives definately outweigh the negatives ... especially if this could hurt Intel and insure that AMD will be able to compete with them for years to come ...

    Just my $0.02


    1. Re:This alliance should work .... by cheezedawg · · Score: 2

      AMD should still be able to undercut Intel's outrageous pricing

      Have you checked prices lately? Lets look at some current chip prices. An Athlon 2600 (yes, the 2800 still is not on the shelves yet) runs for about $280. The 2600 competes roughly with the P4 2.6 GHz (AMD didn't just pull the model number 2600 out of nowhere), and that chip costs about $270- Intel is about $10 cheaper.

      chips that have a detailed instruction set, not chips that just do nothing fast

      Well, aside from some of the non-standard instruction set extensions that have no effect on 90% of the applications out there, AMD uses the exact same instruction set as Intel. I thought that was pretty obvious, though.

      especially if this could hurt Intel and insure that AMD will be able to compete with them for years to come

      This is not going to hurt Intel- they have similar technology sharing agreements with IBM already (on top of the billions that they already spend researching manufacturing tech).

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    2. Re:This alliance should work .... by mustangdavis · · Score: 2
      Have you checked prices lately? Lets look at some current chip prices [pricewatch.com]. An Athlon 2600 (yes, the 2800 still is not on the shelves yet) runs for about $280. The 2600 competes roughly with the P4 2.6 GHz (AMD didn't just pull the model number 2600 out of nowhere), and that chip costs about $270- Intel is about $10 cheaper.



      Just wait until it is "hammer time" ....

      Then we'll see who is going to be competitive ...

      To Intel: buh-buy!
      From: AMD, with love


  16. No by friedegg · · Score: 5, Informative
    From an AMD History page:

    Since 1969, AMD has grown from a fledgling start-up, headquartered in the living room of one of its founders, to a global corporation with annual revenues of $4.6 billion.
    --
    Google doesn't index user sigs, so stop trying to "Google Bomb" with them.
    1. Re:No by mgblst · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your quote doesn't metion whether they moved out of his living room?

  17. This is all about manufacturing by zealot · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  18. AMD need to get the product out. by moduc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    1. Re:AMD need to get the product out. by Kourino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay for a GHz PDA unless AMD made a huge turnaround from their current reputation. That would be one really hot beast to carry around in your hand. AMD would have to put a lot more into making their chips run cooler ... though they've come a long way so far.

      I think that's an interesting idea though ... and it could probably come to fruition easy enough in about a year. Hell, it probably wouldn't be even *that* difficult to pull off. AMD has the price advantage now, I say they just pull their current Athlon core, downclock it (it'll run cooler than the Thunderbird, I bet) and work from there. You'd have to convince people that it's more than just a "cool toy", though.

  19. Re:Is all this change good for the company? by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?)

  20. Re:IBM + AMD = APPLE G5? by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

    But the relationship appears to be one way, how is AMD going to help IBM on the PPC?

  21. Re:IBM + AMD = APPLE G5? by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...and AMD makes great ships"

    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/OEG20030108S003 8

    Mike Cho

  22. IBM -- possible matchmaker by Quazi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple is consulting with IBM about the PPC970. AMD is consulting with IBM about a new fab process. So, with any luck from IBM, there's a chance that representatives from both Apple and AMD will be in the same room together! With any more luck, they'll be opposite genders (then again, that doesn't much matter these days), and they'll hit it off!! (..but we've got to see their offspring.. it will be wonderful!)

  23. A better link for this story... by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 3, Informative
    AMD deal with IBM appears to end earlier alliances, but what worries me is that:
    • "AMD will relocate a substantial number of engineers to IBM's silicon development facility in Fishkill, N.Y., and joint development work will start later this month."

    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

  24. not true by dirvish · · Score: 3, Funny

    AMD and IBM Working Together on Future Chips

    I don't believe it. Time travel is impossible!

  25. If You're Thinking "PowerHammer", "IBM Athlon"... by 0x69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're thinking "PowerHammer", "IBM Athlon", etc., then you REALLY don't get it. This is like GM and Ford cooperating on expensive research needed to meet new Federal safety & pollution standards:
    - An engineer who used a saw to cut GM & Ford airbags or catalytic converters open a few years later could see similarities in the technology.
    - Someone who was expecting to see a Pontiac Mustang or Lincoln DeVille would be SOL.

    --
    It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
  26. Pricewatch prices .... by mustangdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

    AMD:

    $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 ... only cheaper for the 2.6 .... no where else .... hmmmmm

    I'll stick with my earlier statement ...


  27. IT drought. by Anand_S · · Score: 2

    I read a similiar article recently that had the headline "Former AMD and IBM Employees Working Together on Fish n' Chips."

  28. Celeron... by MamasGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Mighty fine nerve tonic...and boy do I have nerve!"

    Cartoon reference...anyway, I digress...

    The first Celerons were junk. No cache. Wretched things. Ugh. However, the Mendocino Celerons, the Coppermine Celerons and best of all the Tualatin Celerons were almost as good as their respective PIII "big brothers." Great price point made them the choice for anything that didn't absolutely, positively need all the caching the PIII provided.

    However, the "Celeron...eew!" equation has become a reality again. Basically the chips Intel are selling as Celerons are very neutered P4s. Avoid them like the plague.

    --
    "But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever....In the digital world, we don't need back-ups..."
    -- Jack Valenti
  29. Not so sure it was a bad business move... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wasn't surprised when the AMD Athlon pulled out ahead of the Pentium 4, then fell very far behind. The Athlon was not engineered to ramp up well over 1 GHz. AMD was very foolish to race to that point, seeing as how long it took them to get working silicon at just 2 GHz.

    It gave AMD some very good credibility, having the fastest processors, not just being some copycat always behind. Without that credibility, they would never have gotten Athlon MP in on the market. Most likely they wouldn't get money for the investments they'd need (and still do) to keep up with Intel otherwise.

    It showed that Intel could be beaten, at least for a short while. Kinda like the gfx cards. Geforce, Geforce DDR, Geforce 2, Geforce 2 GTS, Geforce 3, Geforce 3 Ultra, Geforce 4... Radeon 9700! Ok Nvidia might strike back just as hard with Geforce FX, but it's the same thing.

    Besides, it's not like AMD is really far behind. I've seen AMD2800+ in the stores, Intel has 3.06GHz (assuming those PR ratings are still close to valid). Of course AMD is now playing pretty much every design trick in the book (FSB, additional layer, minor core improvements+++) to keep up, so they need SOI and/or Hammer fairly soon, but they're still in loop.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Early Pentium 4's were not that great by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    I think the reasons why Intel was able to quickly ramp up the speed of the Pentium 4 were:

    1. The architectural design of the CPU core was intended to handle speeds well beyond 3 GHz CPU clock speed.

    2. Intel's Northwood-core Pentium 4's with 512 KB of L2 cache on the CPU die substantially speeded up performance.

    3. The introduction of Hyper-Threading Technology on the CPU core starting with the 3.06 GHz P4's will offer a bigger performance boost when software that takes full advantage of it arrives over the next six months.

    If anyone remembers the original Socket 423 P4's, they ran very hot and had performance that was in many ways inferior to the Thunderbird-core Athlons. The current Northwood-core P4's run quite a bit cooler and offer extraordinary performance.

  32. Re:AMD quality problems? by PCBman! · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?
  33. What AMD needs by brejc8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AMD has got a killer processor with trhe hammer but the current sample versions have a tiny cache. This is because AMD never had good luck with production flaws and their yeild is usually low (So I hear). So they are forced to making smaller chips. Now IBM have had some silly sized silicon experience. They are way way ahead of the others. especially as the hammer is a dual ISA chip so it would need a copy of each library for both architectures. Thus a need for a doubled cache.
    I remember a colegue coming back from Hot Chips and there being a presentation by some people of the so called giant chips they theoreticly could make and IBM just blew them out the water with some 8 metal layer 5x5 cm monstrosety (numbers are prob. way out).

  34. Re: You are wrong by benzapp · · Score: 2

    Thats not true at all. The AMD K6 233 beat the Pentium Pro 233 and Pentium 266 for some time (about 4-5 months) before the Pentium II's came out. The K6 is really a processor that has been underappreciated, but in 1997 it was great. Remember, AMD purchased NexGen which had the Nx586 which was a great processor in its day. NexGen was founded by quite a few ex-intel engineers who wanted to bring RISC computing to the desktop. The K6 is what would have become the NexGen Nx686. To this day, the Athlon uses RISC instructions internally.

    What made the Athlon special was how its floating point performance was so far superior to the Pentium II's and III's. The original NexGen Nx586 didn't even HAVE a floating point unit and the K6 had relatively terrible floating point performance. Going all the way back to the original Nx586 P60 (50 mhz), clock for clock the technology always beat Intel for integer performance. NexGen STARTED the P- rating system because of this. This was the same fate that befell Cyrix which has been out of the game for years because the FPU performance sucked.

    In reality you are right, this is the same game that has been going on now for eight years. Intel competitors create processors more efficient than Intel, but Intel can ratchet up the performance.

    For geeks however, the floating performance was an issue even five years ago for games, filters, and such.

    Its just unfortunate when some people are ignorant of the whole story, because its really fascinating. Me, I haven't owned an Intel processor since 1994 with my first NexGen Nx586 66, so I have a long history of antiquated boxes to prove it.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  35. pp200 by zogger · · Score: 2

    --this is my bleeding edge 5 year old top of the line machine. It was medium doggy with 32 ram, but at 226 it seems perfectly normal on rh7.2. I am just constantly amazed at all the references to machines this old as being useless, throw em away, etc. I can ran a half a dozen apps at the same time and it works perfectly OK. I don't run videogames or do weather modeling, that is apparently the only (very generally speaking now) real need for latest multiple giga herz machines that I can see.

    Can't wait to actually find the correct stepping chip and the correct volt regulator for like 5$ so I can add the second cpu to the mobo. heh, poor mans easy upgrade path.

    And a hearty "thankyou" rich guys for buying new stuff at ridiculous prices so all us peons can get them for peanuts later on. Capitalism roolz.

  36. Mrs AMD's reaction by Duds · · Score: 2

    "Look dear, I didn't mind you starting a company here when we were young and there was no office. I even let you make chips here, I EVEN didn't mind when you extended our living room to 4 square miles BUT I WILL NOT LET YOU BRING IBM IN HERE!"