In the aftermath of Intel’s decision to not put out a 4.0GHz, I’ve repeatedly seen the comment “Unlike Intel, AMD seems to be doing fine with 90nm transition.”
Excuse me? Do we share the same reality?
The Facts
Prescott was introduced a year behind schedule. 90nm Hammers were introduced a year behind schedule.
Unlike the normal routine, when new processors are introduced at the highest speed grades, Prescotts were introduced at just lower speed grades. 90nm Hammer have also been introduced at just lower speed grades.
Even sometime after launch, the original Prescotts were hard to find. Today, 90nm Hammmers are hard to find, with only one Pricewatch vendor in the U.S. openly selling them weeks after introduction.
Intel used the older 130nm process to provide a processor. AMD is going to use its older 130nm process to provide a 2.6GHz processor for FX.
Higher speed Prescotts have been much delayed. Higher speed 90nm Hammers will be delayed until 2Q 2005.
Doesn’t this all sound pretty alike to you?
Either they’ve both been plagued by problems, or neither has. The sane answer is that both have had problems.
It may well turn out that AMD will have relatively fewer problems than Intel has had with Prescott, but that remains to be seen.
Be the first to comment