Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-02, 04:19 PM   #1
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Cool Pentium 4 aka Prescott at 0.09 TSMC

HOLY CRAP AMD IN TROUBLE READ THIS

We are all hearing rumours of NV30 delays as the try and get the tape out finalised on 0.13 micron technology. SO here is an interesting article from anandtech looking at how IBM is already showing working samples of 6MB caches at over 2GHz on 0.09 micron technology.

Have a gander at the near future, Imagine NV35 and NV40 's potential once they move to 0.09 micron fabrication, and a CPU with 100M transistors by 2007, just how many transistors a GPU will have then:

http://www.anandtech.com/news/showne...l?i=15766&t=an


Date: March 12th, 2002 2:59 AM
Author Anand Lal Shimpi


Just two weeks ago Intel officially introduced the successor to the Pentium 4 under the codename Prescott. To be released in the second half of 2003, Prescott will be Intel's first 0.09-micron (90nm) CPU that will feature the following:

- Hyper-Threading technology
- Micro-architectural enhancements
- Additional L2 cache
- 800MHz FSB (200MHz Quad-Pumped)
- 90nm manufacturing process
- Close to 100,000,000 transistors

Intel has repeatedly shown graphs of where they expect CPU transistor counts to be over the next decade. Prescott's 2003 release places its transistor count at very close to 100 million transistors, meaning that it's going to be one very complicated and cache-filled desktop chip.

Today Intel announced that they have produced a fully functional 52Mbit SRAM (6.5MB) based off of the 90nm process that will be used for the Prescott core. While Prescott won't feature nearly as large of a L2 cache, the SRAM cells used in this demonstration silicon are identical to those that will be used with Prescott.

The production of this 52Mbit SRAM is important for a few reasons; first it shows that Intel's 90nm production is coming along quite nicely. When designing an SRAM circuit the basic interconnects and wiring are the same that are used in conventional CPUs; the main difference being that SRAM circuits are considerably less complex than the adders, bus interface units, multiplexers, etc… of a fully functional CPU. Towards the end of 2002 Intel will begin to demonstrate more complex logic (potentially in the form of ALUs) using this 90nm process.



Currently, the 52Mbit SRAM produced on Intel's 90nm process is running at higher clock speeds than anything currently coming out of Intel's fabs. Mind you that the highest clocked silicon being mass-produced out of Intel's fabs is between 2.2 and 2.4GHz. For a manufacturing process that is still over a year from making its public debut, being able to produce circuits operating at more than 2.2GHz is impressive.


A 300mm wafer can hold 120 billion 90nm transistors

Intel's 90nm process will be exclusively used on 300mm wafers which will help Intel manage the costs of their comparatively large die CPUs. This 52Mbit cache features a total of 330 million transistors and a 109.08 mm^2 die size; to put things in perspective, that's a bigger chip than the Coppermine Pentium III and almost the size of the Athlon XP yet it's all cache.


The 109mm^2 die features a highly repetitive structure as you can see from the above picture. This is because laying out SRAM is highly repetitive and thus makes using SRAM as the first trial of a new manufacturing process common practice in the industry.

To push the limits even further, Madison will feature a 6MB L3 cache built on the 0.13-micron process, with a 90nm Montecito core Intel may be tempted to go beyond a 10MB on-die L3 cache. These 90nm SRAM transistors are exactly 1/2 the size of the 130nm (0.13-micron) SRAM transistors used in the 0.13-micron Northwood processors; this means that without increasing the die size of the CPU Intel would be able to outfit their desktop CPUs with a 1MB L2 cache on their 90nm process.

Another advance that Intel is demonstrating with their 90nm 52Mbit SRAM is the industry's smallest 6-transistor SRAM cell size. Any cache is made up of a number of SRAM cells, each cell consisting of generally anywhere between 4 and 6 transistors. When put together, these cells form the multi-kilobyte or multi-megabyte caches that we see on a daily basis (e.g. the Pentium 4's 512KB L2 cache or the Athlon XP's 256KB L2 cache). The smaller these cells can be made, the more cache can be used within a fixed area of silicon. With their 90nm technology Intel is able to produce a 6T SRAM cell in the space of 1 square micron. Let's compare this with what TSMC just announced last week about their 90nm manufacturing process:





SRAM Size Demonstrated Cell Size
Intel's 90nm process (P1262) 52Mbit (6.5MB) 1 um^2
TSMC's 90nm process 1Mbit (128KB) & 4Mbit (512KB) 1.36 um^2

As you can see, with a smaller cell size Intel's 90nm process can achieve greater SRAM densities. By the end of 2002 TSMC hopes to get their 90nm SRAM cell size down to 1.27 um^2, still shy of the 1 um^2 achievement.

When combined with 300mm wafers, Intel's 90nm manufacturing process should be very friendly towards future-generation, larger cache CPUs. Intel will definitely be tempted to bring more features as well as larger caches to all of their CPUs once this 90nm/300mm wafer transition begins.

Meanwhile AMD will continue to manufacture on 200mm wafers until 2005 but their 130nm processor cores have small enough footprints that this shouldn't be much of an issue.

All this from 3dgpu
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-02, 04:28 PM   #2
SavagePaladin
info*****
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,395
Default

How does stuff coming out late 2003 leave AMD in trouble? I fail to understand
SavagePaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-02, 04:37 PM   #3
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally posted by SavagePaladin
How does stuff coming out late 2003 leave AMD in trouble? I fail to understand
Well becouse Intel already started to work on this tech 0.09 and there is no word from AMD if AMD is sleeping they will be left behind
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-02, 04:46 PM   #4
SavagePaladin
info*****
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,395
Default

Actually I'm pretty positive there is, but I can't be bothered to look it up.
See ya.
SavagePaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-02, 09:23 PM   #5
Richthofen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 212
Default

"
Well becouse Intel already started to work on this tech 0.09 and there is no word from AMD if AMD is sleeping they will be left behind
"

They are working on 0.09 too @ Dresden.
Just take a look at their roadmap and you will see that they will have 0.09 ready when they will need it.
Next step will be the 0.065 300mm wafer fab in Singapore in corporation with Infineon and UMC.
Richthofen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-02, 09:25 PM   #6
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DVS


Well becouse Intel already started to work on this tech 0.09 and there is no word from AMD if AMD is sleeping they will be left behind
Intel was already on .13 long before AMD, and AMD has not been left that far behind. increasing the FSB of current Athlons makes them competitive with top performing P4s.

next year will be very interesting, with a P4 that will be able to handle dual channel DDR, performance expectations should be high. Hammer will be very interesting as well now, when is Doom 3 coming out so i can plan a super upgrade
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-02, 10:58 PM   #7
netviper13
Treehugger
 
netviper13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 942
Default

If you look at AMD's roadmap, their .09 Hammer part is scheduled for release in the 2nd half of 2003.

http://hwextreme.com/picture.php?url.../images/3a.gif
netviper13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-02, 12:13 AM   #8
Pakman
Registered User
 
Pakman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 22
Default

A contact from a major video card company told me a few months back that NVIDIA is already working on it too. Too bad that the computer market has gone dead in the middle of all this great progress. Look for another technology slowdown in the near future.
__________________
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Pakman is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-02, 12:40 AM   #9
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by netviper13
If you look at AMD's roadmap, their .09 Hammer part is scheduled for release in the 2nd half of 2003.

http://hwextreme.com/picture.php?url.../images/3a.gif
with all the delays i had almost forgotten about that hopefulyl it will be out by the time Doom 3 comes out, perfect time to upgrade
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-02, 12:53 AM   #10
PCarr78
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 505
Default

It's HAMMER TIME!

Gonna hammer intel! (if she's hot, heh)

Seriously, it's STILL a p4, which means it's STILL inefficient, and which means AMD STILL owns it clock for clock
PCarr78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-02, 05:56 AM   #11
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

people need to get over the efficiency, P4 was never about efficiency but attaining high clock speeds easily. i'd say Intel was quite successful that way, and could easily push the 3Ghz barrier if they needed/wanted to.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-02, 01:05 PM   #12
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DVS


Well becouse Intel already started to work on this tech 0.09 and there is no word from AMD if AMD is sleeping they will be left behind
That doesn't mean AMD isn't doing anything, we just don't hear from them. Look at their road map, things will change in there. Intel is just trying to create hype around their upcoming CPU, that's all.
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CPUMark99 - how do you compare fuelrod Benchmarking And Overclocking 66 07-19-11 09:32 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.