AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: x52 are 90nm parts?
Topic Summary:
Created On: 02/22/2005 05:55 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02/22/2005 05:55 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
gyll
Member

Posts: 23
Joined: 04/25/2004

I found on various reviews that the x52 models are 90n parts, but i find it hard to believe given the problems AMD has with ramping up the core speed on 90n (also, having AMD so dubiously secretive about this only enforces my belief). Still, does anyone know about any official word on this issue? tia.
 02/22/2005 06:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zir_blazer
Code Warrior

Posts: 2840
Joined: 03/19/2004

I didn't see any problem at all with them. The Winchester Core, AMD first attempt with a 90nm Manufacturation Process, was quite good and overclocked a bit better than the mature Newcastle, most of them reached 2.6 GHz. The Core than the x52 Opterons uses is a more advanced and mature one, so the maximum Frecuency should be higher. It supposed to incluide Strained Silicon (Thing that only the exclusive Athlon 64 FX-55 made with 130nm had) and I hear in one place than it probabily got copper layers to reduce interferece (Like the Thoroughbred , so it can become a true beast. If AMD released it, is because it was good enough for that job.
 02/28/2005 09:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Calvn_Swing
Senior Member

Posts: 293
Joined: 01/13/2004

I don't think AMD has had any more problems than Intel at ramping up clock speeds on 90nm. Transistor density is a pain in the butt all things considered. My take on it is that AMD noticed the main problem of thermal density and let their chips stay in development a bit longer to try to fix it rather than just push them to the market with bigger heatsinks. As a result the 90nm parts seem to run almost as cool as the 130nm parts. (There isn't a significant change in the guidelines for heatsinks for the new 90nm Opterons that I've seen so far!

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it was a tricky transistion for AMD and Intel both. I personally think AMD has handled it more responsibly, if more slowly. But, that's my take. And in terms of AMD being dubiously secretive, I had no doubts that the 252 was a 90nm part - but maybe I knew because I am browsing around this forum all the time. I don't think it is any more dubiously secretive than ATI making 9800 Pro cards with the R360 chips and not telling the people that bought them that they really have an XT. Point being, there is probably a sensible reason, you just don't know why yet.

As for the 90nm problems, there are a few reviews out there that also suggest that the similarly clocked 90nm pieces outperform their 130nm brethren. (ie. a 130nm 246 is slower than a 90nm 246.) I don't know as it hasn't been much talked about beyond those reviews (the increase was 1% or so anyway so no big deal), but that suggests that the problems are maybe less than you were lead to believe.



-------------------------
Iwill Zmax DP SFF Barebones kit... (300W PSU, 8 USB, 1 FW, etc...)
Dual AMD Opteron 275's | 2 Gigs (2 Dimms 1024Mb) Patriot RAM 3-3-3-8
WD Caviar 80 Gig HDD - System
WD Raptor 74 Gig HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256
NEC ND-3520A Dual Layer DVD±RW | Mitsumi Floppy/Card Reader combo
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information