Monday, July 23rd 2007

AMD’s Fab 36 Fully Converted to 65nm Process Technology

Advanced Micro Devices announced during the most recent teleconference with analysts that its Fab 36 had been fully converted to modern process technology and also said that the yield of those products was high enough.
Our Fab 36 conversion to 65nm is complete, with yields exceeding expectations and we now turn all our attention to 45nm [transition]
said Dirk Meyer, the president and chief operating officer at AMD, during the conference call.
As a result, AMD’s first 65nm quad-core Opteron processors code-named Barcelona will be introduced in August or September, but will only run at 2.0GHz, whereas faster parts are projected to become available in Q4 2007.Source: X-bit labs
Add your own comment

27 Comments on AMD’s Fab 36 Fully Converted to 65nm Process Technology

#2
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
meh the 1.8ghz dual core opty 1210 clocks to 3.2ghz (easily) hopefully the 65nm and lower vcore hopfully will let this chip clock pretty high (maybe the 3ghz range?)
Posted on Reply
#3
mandelore
omg !!! HELL YEAH!!! :) :toast:

right on track for my bday, woot!
Posted on Reply
#5
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
nice that AMD is getting more up to date i want a 65nm to see how they overclock.
Posted on Reply
#6
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
They do have out 65 NM procs now. Even some of the newer optys are on the same die size.
Posted on Reply
#7
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
I want the 45w(or what ever it is) Athlon x2 (65nm) i would like to see a 65nm sempron if the 90nm hit 3.1ghz than i would like to see what a 65nm can do if a dual core x2 the new one hit 3+ghz than a sempron would be kick ass.
Posted on Reply
#8
FOXCONN1115
Looks likes the Kentsfield and Conroe are no longer top of the game. :D
Posted on Reply
#9
Random Murderer
The Anti-Midas
heh, not trying to be a fan boy here, but theyre STILL way behind intel. intel already has a couple 45nm plants.
Posted on Reply
#10
prime95
This progression to 65nm seems slow to me, and the progression of dual to quad core is also mighty slow. I'll put aside the fact that software still has catching up to do...
Posted on Reply
#11
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
by: Random Murderer
heh, not trying to be a fan boy here, but theyre STILL way behind intel. intel already has a couple 45nm plants.
fan boy JK:laugh: I agree they are behind before you go calling me a fan boy look at my system specs.
Posted on Reply
#12
Wile E
Power User
by: p_o_s_pc
I want the 45w(or what ever it is) Athlon x2 (65nm) i would like to see a 65nm sempron if the 90nm hit 3.1ghz than i would like to see what a 65nm can do if a dual core x2 the new one hit 3+ghz than a sempron would be kick ass.
Many people have already had the 65nm dual cores to 3GHz or higher. I had my Brisbane to 3GHz on 1.55v, and I know a few that got higher than me on less volts with better chips.
Posted on Reply
#13
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
by: FOXCONN1115
Looks likes the Kentsfield and Conroe are no longer top of the game. :D
Indeed, because having a new 65nm plant means they magically have killer chips out.
Posted on Reply
#14
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
by: Wile E
Many people have already had the 65nm dual cores to 3GHz or higher. I had my Brisbane to 3GHz on 1.55v, and I know a few that got higher than me on less volts with better chips.
I am talking about the NEW Athlon x2(EE) not Athlon 64 x2.
This is the one i am talking about the 45w CPU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103186
Posted on Reply
#15
FOXCONN1115
I still believe AMD just = raw power, and Intel = raw speed. I have a core 2 system.. and my AMD eats it..
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
by: FOXCONN1115
I still believe AMD just = raw power, and Intel = raw speed. I have a core 2 system.. and my AMD eats it..
Sorry, but that statement just doesn't make any sense. And what's the core2 system clocked at? And what are you using for the basis of comparison?
Posted on Reply
#17
FOXCONN1115
by: Wile E
Sorry, but that statement just doesn't make any sense. And what's the core2 system clocked at? And what are you using for the basis of comparison?
I've had an equal ratio of Intel's to AMD systems over the past 8 years, and loved intels because they were always fast, but also loved amd's because they preatty much took everything I threw at them, where as the intel's were a little left behind.. I still have a Athlon XP 2800+ barton 2.08ghz stock, that chews up my intel p4 2.4...


I've tried both systems at stock settings and oced setting for my core 2 vs amd x2.. and my amd beat the core 2 in almost every area.. my core 2 does things faster, but my amd does more at once at a constant pace where as the core 2 doesn't..
Posted on Reply
#18
Wile E
Power User
I don't know man. I think there is something else at play here. Something has to be holding the Core2 back, if that's the case.
Posted on Reply
#19
FOXCONN1115
its a possibility. i'll admit i'm an amd fanboy, but amd's arn't that far behind performance(speed, power) wise. intels run a lot warmer than amd's as well.. that and they are still way too overpriced. the motherboards are twice as much as some am2 boards.
Posted on Reply
#20
Wile E
Power User
by: FOXCONN1115
the motherboards are twice as much as some am2 boards.
That I won't argue with. lol. A good overclocking AMD board can be had for $80 or less. (I know, I have one. lol)
Posted on Reply
#21
FOXCONN1115
lol my $129 EVGA board only cost me $90.. for the same board in intel form, its like $180 or so I believe..
Posted on Reply
#22
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
I spent $99+shipping for my Gigabyte when i bought it.This thing overclocks to 400+mhz on FSB with stock chip-set volts.
Posted on Reply
#23
FOXCONN1115
I built my now ex-gf a computer.. she uses is for mulimedia/webdesign.. AMD based.. she loves it. socket 939.. athlon x2 3800+ @ 2.4GHz, 2GB of Corsair XMS, 2x7800gt's.. stands up to Adobe Creative Suite 3 like its on vacation. :D
Posted on Reply
#24
kwchang007
by: FOXCONN1115
I've had an equal ratio of Intel's to AMD systems over the past 8 years, and loved intels because they were always fast, but also loved amd's because they preatty much took everything I threw at them, where as the intel's were a little left behind.. I still have a Athlon XP 2800+ barton 2.08ghz stock, that chews up my intel p4 2.4...


I've tried both systems at stock settings and oced setting for my core 2 vs amd x2.. and my amd beat the core 2 in almost every area.. my core 2 does things faster, but my amd does more at once at a constant pace where as the core 2 doesn't..
Yes A XP destroys P4, but Core 2 vs A x2 at the same clock speeds, Core 2 should be faster.
Posted on Reply
#25
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
Is a A xp older than a P4?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment