Madshrimps Forum Madness - AMD ingnots, sliced "TBread" with the crusts cut off

Madshrimps Forum Madness (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/)

- Articles & Howto's (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f6/)

- - AMD ingnots, sliced "TBread" with the crusts cut off (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f6/amd-ingnots-sliced-tbread-crusts-cut-off-2324/)

@Dail-Up: Liquid3D doesn't speak dutch =)

sry, but don't have the time now (or this month) to translate it because of my exams..

that's why we have Systran , read the annoucement in each forum =)

Quote:

Is correct nothing of that complete tale with those rings.
Thus the production process does not work simply.
If improve the chips in the middle its then on the they side, this a
strong indication that is not your production process in order is.

* RobT are chip stylist and hear best still once what of the
production side

That with substance particles or crooked established Len zen indicates
already that they know still bladders of toeters; the masks concern
but a couple chips (be negative of 2 at 2 chips or this way), the
chips to the edge are therefore illuminated in the same way and
geproduceert such as those in the middle. Therefore if there something
sits crooked to that Len zen for the belichting or to the masks in the
complete construction, then that e.g. the chip under on the mask (! )
transfer badly on the wafer. Then get you on the eventual wafer
practically a chess-board pattern of bad chips.
substance particles? Sorry, but those chips are made in class 10
surroundings, if present the class 1 surroundings are not (the number
indicates thereby the number of substance particles that larger is
than so much micron, by cubic meter); you can a couple chips have
which are by such impurities at production on wafer, but half?? in
that last case I the smoke prohibition in the waferstepper space what
more firmly ratifies...

There something should be wrong with your silicon, crystal grating
problems and purity, then you throw away half of your chips, but
contract you the discussion with your supplier.

There this way still much more onnozelheden and inadequacies in
Article stand.

The reason which the laagstgeklokte cpu's obtain the same speed as you
them overklokt as the hoogstgeklokte, means simply that the AMD have
production process complete well under control, and therefore in fact
very high yield have. That means (what has come here on t.net already
forward frequently enough) that almost all cpu's the highest speed to
obtain (that more or less process -, design - has been thermally
limited or). All cpu's have therefore about a beetje the same quality,
obtain the same speed, therefore then amd probably look at to the
energiegebruik/warmth development, etcetc.

Do not forget also that these overklokkers do not do per se the same
tests as AMD, or in fact: per se not.
Think just as of the PIII 1.13GHz which had be called back because
TOMs of THG came that they could do no linux kernelcompile; those
cpu's were, however, by the then tests of Intel heengekomen.

In the same way these overgeklokte t-breds come perhaps by the tests
of the overklokkers gone, but AMD have e.g. determined that they are
not absolute stable or this way. Or not absolute stably all psu's,
coolers approved with and mobo's or this way.

edit: this translation sucks donkeyballs :^D

I'll translate it at 2 o' clock, after my test CSS

here ya go folks

"The whole story of those rings is crap, your idea of the CPU production is just wrong. If the chips in the middle are better then those on the edge, it's is a clear sign that your manufacturing process is wrong!

*RobT is chip designer and gets quite some info on the manufacturing.

That with the pieces of dust and bad lenses means that they don’t know anything about it; the wafers concern only a few chips (so, the negative of 2*2chips or so), so the chips on the edge are lighted and produced in the same way as those on the middle. So if there’s something wrong with the lenses that light it or the wafers in the whole construction, then e.g. the chip located right under the wafer would be transferred poorly on the wafer. Then you’ll finally get a wafer with a chessboard pattern of bad chips

Dust? Sorry, but those chips are made in a class 10 environment, if it isn’t already a class 1 by now (the number represents the amount of dust particles that’s bigger then 1micron, for every cubic metre); you can have a few bad chips on a wafer due to such impurities, but half of them??In that last case I’d want less people smoking in the waferstepper. …

If there might be something wrong with the silicium, crystal or impuritiets, then you’re not going to throw away half of the chips but instead have a talk with you supplier.

There are much more stupidities in that article.

The reason why the lowest clocked CPU’s (overclocked) obtain the same speed as the highest clocked, means that the manufacturing process is okay, meaning it’s got a high yield. That means (what’s already been discussed a lot) that all CPU’s obtain the highest speeds (it’s more or less limited by design or thermic reasons). All CPU’s are about the same quality, obtain the same speed, so AMD probably rates them by power usage, heat dissipation etc.

Don’t forget that these overclockers don’t do the same tests as AMD, or actually: not at all.Remember the PIII 1.13, they were called back to the factory when THG discovered they weren’t able to do Linux kernel compilation but the CPU’s passed the Intel tests anyway.

In that same way do the OC’ed T-Breds pass the overclocker’s test, but AMD found out that e.g. they absolutely weren’t stable enough or so. Or not 100% stable with all PSU’s, coolers, mainboards or so."

Nice and interesting article, I am not really a modelnumber expert so it's an interesting read.

I see the things I wanted to mention mostly popped up allready. Being:
"he fact Intel is surpassing 3.06GHz using standard Deep Ultraviolet Lithography, implies the problem with AMD lie somewhere else."

That looked sort of misplaced as this is mostly architecture related and is one of the reasons why Mhz doesn't mean a thing when comparing architectures. For example the Pentium-M (Banias) Intel made is not clocked as high as a Pentium-4 M nor can they clock it as high, even though it's still Intel making them with access to the same technology. When you start to compare with other architectures (SPARC, Power4, IA64, ...) it gets even worse as the design difference and subsequent performance results are completely out of line with the Mhz rating.

Note that I can imagine how the line got in there as architecture was not you focus and thus not on your mind when you wrote that line.

The other thing was allready pasted from that RobT guy. As he mentioned it's not unlikely that these many good CPU's pop up because AMD simply has a good production process. Within the same range of cores CPU's have the same design and their speed is determined by the quality of the yield. If for example AMD sells 20% high range CPU's but have their process upto a level where 40% of their CPU's would qualify as high level than obviously half of those are going to be put in a different box.

BLMet

Quote:

and interesting article

that's why Liquid3D published it, he claimed nowhere that all the info was 100% correct, getting this article read by lots of different people will only help pinpointing the areas of the article that could need improvement the next time around!

thanks for the comment :)

some great insights here!
http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=1056653
:ws:

lets crack the puzzle and solve this mystery of chipset fabrication :)

Thank you jmke what many critics don't realize, is, I'm playing them like a fiddle. (just kidding) I've been postulating theories since my passion for philosophy was piqued 15 years ago.. Of course I try to work with solid premesis, however; my primary intent is to coerce such reactions as to seek the TRUTH! That not to say I wrote the entire artcle with the sole intent of instigating being flamed in effigy, I put forth a concerted effort. Irregardless (I even got an email saying there was no such word :o ) the theory he calls "crap" isn't my own, and says so in the article. It's Austin, and is credited to him. When a response is emneshed with insult, it's an egotistical responce? Why would this cause so much anger?

I'll reiterate I "put myself out there" to learn. And I'm not insulted, nor terribly offended by such reactions, so long as they contain some pertinent info, were all learning.