AMD moves cautiously into the 45 nm era

[Jitway]

The term "latecomer" is a particularly uncomfortable one for AMD. So for its 45 nm CPU unveiling at CeBIT in Hannover today, the company had to make the case that, despite being later, Shanghai and Deneb will be technologically better.

 

It's now an unavoidable asterisk in AMD's history: Intel introduced its first 45 nm CPUs to consumers last fall. So the fanfare accompanying the demonstration of AMD's first 45 nm quad-core CPUs just today at CeBIT in Hannover can't come from the usual source. It's following up, and it has to catch up fast, but it won't have the full arsenal of process technologies that Intel is already putting to use.

 

One of the key differentiators between AMD and Intel process technology continues to be their choice of substrates. Years ago, Intel made a conscious choice to stick with ordinary CMOS, or "bulk silicon," while AMD introduced an insulating layer in its base wafer, for what's called silicon-on-insulator (SOI). That reduced power leakage considerably already, which is one of the key benefits of HK+MG.

 

But that benefit is best appreciated for a bulk silicon substrate, which arguably needs it most, Silcott remarked. "Because we use silicon-on-insulator substrates as opposed to bulk silicon that Intel uses," he said, "SOI gives us a certain amount of advantages at a performance-per-watt level...as well as other things that we do in terms of our design and our process. [so] we don't feel like we're going to be lacking by not having high-k+metal gate right away."

 

Intel has claimed it made the choice to stick with bulk silicon because it doesn't scale as well at smaller lithography levels, it's too costly to implement for the benefits it produces, and that it actually introduces a problem at smaller scales: With a CPU's SOI supporting a higher thermal resistance, it requires a higher operating temperature, according to Intel's explanation. Typically that implies higher power consumption.

 

 

 

Well a better late then ever. I still like AMD and recommend them all the time to my customers but Intel sure is putting the hurt on them lately. So my question to you is AMD on the way out?

 

 

Full story HERE

[Gryph]

I'd like to see AMD reclaim the gaming CPU market but Intel is kicking their ass up and down for the most part.

[Ryuken]

I'd like to see AMD reclaim the gaming CPU market but Intel is kicking their ass up and down for the most part.

 

hopefully AMD can stir some competition once again like back in the old days.

[BlackKnight]

I haven't considered AMD a viable alternative for a while. Will that change anytime soon? Not quite sure.

[ken_cinder]

I was always an Intel freak, till the 64's came out, and I now also own a machine with a Core 2 Duo. Intel is NOT kicking AMD's ass, their prices are a f**king joke and equally matched (If you want to call it that) processors are heavier hitters on AMDs part. The better buy is from AMD, and there is ZERO doubt about that.

 

Both machines I have, sport closely spec'd processors, my Athlon X2 kicks the living crap out my Core 2 Duo.

[Tynvar]

I think AMD is used to the heat thing. They have always been a nice alternative to Intel, with better price and per performance.