Penryn and Nehalem at IDF

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by chainbolt, Sep 19, 2007.

  1. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    104,050
    Location:
    Tokyo
    45nm Penryn wafer :D

    [​IMG]

    45nm Nehalem wafer

    [​IMG]

    http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33929/135/
     
  2. Phreeky

    Phreeky Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    1,703
    Big biscuit!
     
  3. OP
    OP
    chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    104,050
    Location:
    Tokyo

    One Nehalem wafer is enough for me.
     
  4. Scotty1991

    Scotty1991 (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,527
    Location:
    Sydney
    =o imagine the money they waste holding it!
    It is like enough money to make me a new pc every month for a few years!!
     
  5. OP
    OP
    chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    104,050
    Location:
    Tokyo
    If Penryn is already 20% faster, just by shrinking the transistors and enlarging the cache, Nehalem with a completely new architecture will probably blow away everything in its path:

     
  6. lucid

    lucid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    515
    Location:
    Prahran
    exciting times now for cpu development! Compared to the slump with the pentium 4 period.
     
  7. r3s

    r3s Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,785
    Location:
    logan ( 4133 )
    They look to be holding it very carefully around the edges, perhaps they will turn into Engineering samples :)
     
  8. Gaidin

    Gaidin Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,952
    Location:
    Vic
    come on guys, even if that wafer contains $100K worth of potential chips, its nothing compared to the cost of hosting IDF :lol:
     
  9. Boxman

    Boxman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,794
    Location:
    Victoria
    Display samples are generally bummed chips, which appear quite often in early rounds of manufacture. I assure you that wafer will not be cut up and sold. It will sit in a display cabinet for the rest of its life or pawned off to a lucky employee. AFAIK the dies need to be protected if they are to be allowed to come into contact with an 'unclean' environment, otherwise small particles of dust and fingerprints would quickly cause problems.

    They hold it around the edges because fingerprints are just plain unsightly :D.

    Exciting stuff to come for sure.
     
  10. stablez

    stablez Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,038
    Location:
    Humidycrib
    very interesting indeed??
     
  11. dembones

    dembones Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,120
    Location:
    Maryborough, QLD
    someone on OCAU needs to invent a time machine...
    i want new cpus now!!
     
  12. The Mafia

    The Mafia Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,469
    Location:
    Mackay
    does anyone know how they actually turn thse into chips? Are they cut into smaller squares?

    What about the ones on the edges that look like only half a chip?
     
  13. OP
    OP
    chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    104,050
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Funny, just the same question crossed my mind. The real reason by AMD/Intel are so keen to shrink the dies is that it allows them to "burn" more of them on one wafer, which is grealty reducing cost. It is said that Intel gained a 30% cost advantage over AMD because they were 1 year ahead with 65nm, and now obviously again 1 year ahead with 45nm.

    The wafer size used for the current 65nmm process (used by Intel for mass production since mid 2005) is 300mm. Before they used 200mm wafer. So, it's not only reducing the die size but also increasing the wafer size. Intel spent 3 billion USD (!) for their first 300mm wafer fab that produced 65nm dies, existing production facilties cannot simply changed.

    How Many Squares (die) Fit in a Circle (wafer)? Fab Revenue Simulation and Optimization. :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2007
  14. mshagg

    mshagg Politburo

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    23,090
    Location:
    Adelaide
    So these 'wafers' are actually circular objects? So that's a whole bunch of dies that form a wafer?
     
  15. OP
    OP
    chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    104,050
    Location:
    Tokyo

    exaclty: the wafer is a circular piece of silicon, on which the dies are burnt by a "lithography" process

    [​IMG]


    More explained in my OCAU article here:

    http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=452447
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2007
  16. mshagg

    mshagg Politburo

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    23,090
    Location:
    Adelaide
    So the transistors are actually 'burnt' into the silicon with light? As in, its not a physical transistor... but a 'path' that is burnt into the material?

    And then, these wafers are diced up and made into the actual chip?

    Any reason why they are round? I would have thought you'd fit more on a square....
     
  17. OP
    OP
    chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    104,050
    Location:
    Tokyo
    yes, with light :D The die itself is silicon burn by a beam of light :D I was also surprised when I learned this.

    yes, capacitors added, IHS, andwhatever it takes

    No idea, a square would certainly yield more dies. But obviously there must be reason.
     
  18. General_Cartman

    General_Cartman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,726
    Location:
    The Confedaracah!
    Hmm... seems like AMD were right all along then... IMC, HyperTransport.

    When will Intel ever come up with their own ideas? Except for adding more cache.
     
  19. OP
    OP
    chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    104,050
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I am not interested in ideas, but performance. And Intel stuff is currently performing better.
     
  20. OldnBold

    OldnBold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    4,261
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Hehe actually Intel were first when it was called "Netburst" iirc ;)
     

Share This Page