RIAA Wins Landmark Case

From Ars Technica:

Side stepping a bit from the usual subject and focusing instead on the landmark case Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas. I certainly don't want to inflate the implications of this case although it is precedent setting and affects the future behaviour of the RIAA against the 'pirates'. The rest of the world seemed to be polarised on this issue as if it is black and white, Record labels versus music fans, them against us. This isn't always the case.

In fact there is something unique about this legal battle that may not necessarily be applicable to most piracy cases. The evidence against Jammie Thomas is overwhelming. The problem was that she's quite tech savvy enough to work herself around the Internet but at the same time tech stupid to have used the same username wherever she went. Even when using Kazaa! (In fact using Kazaa speaks volume on what kind of Internet user she is). The question of willful file sharing is pretty much evident in this case. The big problem for the RIAA is that everyone is not as blatant as Ms Thomas. Gathering evidence that corroborates wouldn't be as easy.

For the RIAA, its always the case of bad publicity whenever it comes out as sues its customers. In fact I blame the RIAA and the MPAA for making everyone like Jammie Thomas aware of the possibility of getting music or movies online for free. They're the biggest piracy advertising movement on this planet locking in anti-piracy ads on everything they touch showing people that it can be done.

The record labels are corporations made up of people like you and me. The tactics they're employing annoys the hell out of everyone including music fans. We need to send the message to the record labels that we own MP3 players not CD players. We stopped buying CD's 5 years ago and they have yet to wake up and align their business to our needs. I don't care if you get your music illegally or not, but I do believe that blatant actions by the defendant in this particular case is quite over the top. Again, it's not always black and white.

The Story Behind Intel's Breakthrough Transistor

Here's an interesting article about the development of the halfnium based high-k plus metal gate transistor that will debut next month on Intel's 45nm processors. Written by those deeply involved with the research, it shows a glimpse of how Intel's R&D diligently work on finding solutions to problems that are predicted to arrive only in a decade or so. The research for the replacement of the SiO2 gate oxide started ten years ago and was completed in 2004. The decision to implement the technology for 45nm in 2005 is a testament to Intel's lead with the rest of the world. Leading the 45nm transition is a feat by itself. But doing so with a key technology advancement makes it even more frightening.

The High-K Solution

The article may also leave you with a conclusion that without this new high-k technology, AMD's 45nm processors will be disadvantaged in terms of power efficiency and performance customisation. As Nehalem arrives at a time when 45nm matures, a strong microarchitechture standing on top of a highly advanced transistor technology is probably the last thing AMD needs.

"The invention of high-k plus metal gate transistors was an important breakthrough. Although we could have continued to shrink transistors to fit the dimensions needed for the 45-nm generation without this breakthrough, those transistors would not have worked much better than their predecessors, and they certainly would have expended more watts. We're confident this new transistor can be scaled further, and development is already well under way on our next-generation 32-nm transistors using an improved version of high-k plus metal gate technology". - MARK T. BOHR

Intel's WiMAX Push

Intel demonstrated during its recent Developer Forum a WiMAX enabled laptop. The laptop based on the Montevina platform which is scheduled to be released next year contains within it "Echo Peak", a WiFi and a WiMAX compliant chipset. These next generation Centrino notebooks will enable seamless Internet connection - assuming of course that there is a WiMAX Internet service provider close by. The problem at this point in time there's not so many of them around.

Being the founding member of the WiMAX Forum, Intel is trying to accelerate implementation of this open, IP based standard by driving end user availability by integrating WiMax with Centrino. 2007 is coming to a close and while the list of spectrum licenses and infrastructure deployment are growing, still it may not be enough to guarantee universal adoption. The struggles and the financial burden inflicted by 3G are all too fresh to make anyone less skeptical with new communication standards. Especially ones that promises the all-too-familiar "increased bandwidth for media rich content".

None the less, Intel is forging ahead and will do its part to ensure that end-to-end implementation goes according to plan (i.e., Nokia). 2008 should be the year the WiMAX user base starts to trickle, increase and hopefully create enough demand for telecoms to take notice. Intel understands that it won't be its Network & Communications Group that will ultimately benefit from the initial SoC sales (comms silicon on an open standard = low gross margins). Instead it believes that an anywhere, anytime Internet connectivity will ignite more demand for mobile computing. Intel's roadmap for mobile and UMPC products clearly align with its WiMAX strategy and along with it its predicted market growth - a clear emphasis on its pro-active business approach.

In contrast, if anyone wishes to know what AMD is doing to promote ubiquitous Internet connection, they created this brochure to make perfectly clear what their products are. So far all they have is this brochure! Naturally AMD will be benefiting from the increased mobile demand, but Intel once again will be associating Centrino with WiMAX in the coming years like what it did with WiFi. Intel's marketing approach appeals to end user needs and again this will be very successful. AMD's brochure talks about AMD Connect (TM) but I need someone to explain to me what exactly is AMD selling.

Sharikou's Journal Loses the Argument

This doesn't mean Sharikou had a case for argument in the beginning. Anyone claiming Intel's bankruptcy any time soon (Q2'08) or AMD's 30% market share "run-rate" only attracts ridicule followed by the immediate loss of credibility.

After the controversial existence in the blogosphere we can finally conclude once and for all that Sharikou has lost the argument. Godwin's law states that whoever mentions Nazi's or Hitler in a discussion loses the debate.

Sharikou said: "I once concluded that Intel's exclusionism has its roots in NAZIsm."

End of discussion.

Leaked Toliman Die Image

Lately I have been receiving leaks from inside AMD and Intel from anonymous readers. Some of them I cannot reveal since it could put the person in a lot of trouble due to the sensitivity of the subject matter and their obvious involvement. But some do advise to reveal the secret. Like for instance this leaked image of the soon to be released Tri-Core K10 (code named Toliman). Since this leak was passed on to me by GutterRat from someone else, I cannot guarantee the authenticity of this image.

Reading Graphs 101

It should be obvious by now that a lot of folks in the semiconductor industry visit this blog and any wild speculative comments about chip production never gets a free pass. I get quite a few myself but I am always grateful for the learning experience. But for some people, it's like banging your head against the wall.

Take for instance making a claim about things beyond ones expertise. There's a big difference between making claims and stating an assumption. The 1st mistake is making claims about a company's future process. Nobody on this planet except an Intel or AMD approved spokesperson will disclose or make a statement about future yields. You get fired for breaking that rule and if someone does, normally you won't get proof anyway. So if you hear an outsider making claims about future yields, save the grain of salt and dismiss the claim outright. The 2nd mistake is presenting it as facts and using it for one's argument. The 3rd mistake is to keep on insisting even when provided with counter evidence.

Take for example when Scientia said:
"Intel's yields, in contrast, on its brand new 45nm process will take a couple of quarters to reach maturity... Intel will improve its 45nm process and this should pay off by Q2. The process will be mature when Nehalem launches in Q4 08. ".

InTheKnow countered with this evidence (from Mike Bohr, Intel senior fellow). But if you thought the discussion should have ended there, you're wrong.

Scientia's comments about this graph:
"No. You are reading the graph wrong. What it actually shows is that 90nm had worse initial defect density than 130nm but about the same improvement rate. The chart further shows that there was no improvement in initial defect density with 65nm but the rate of improvement got worse. It further shows that 45nm is close to 65nm and worse than 90nm. Again, this matches with what I said."

I'm not sure if Scientia is deliberately misreading this graph but this is the worst graph interpretation I've come across. The way I see it, and if I were to stick to the main point, 45nm matures before 2008 as each node reaches maturity quicker. This is right smack into the 45nm early ramp.

Here's InTheKnow's more detailed and accurate interpretation.
1) Intel required ~24 months to reach the same level on 130 nm that they eventually reached on 90 nm.
2) Intel reached the flat portion of the plot in ~22 months at 90 nm. This despite several flat spots on the graph that showed significant yield hurdles had been encountered. I would expect this since the 90nm transition also overlapped with the 12 inch transition somewhat.
3) On 65 nm Intel matched 90nm yields in ~19 months. Yields continued to improve from beyond the 90 nm levels.
4) 90nm launched around the end of December '04. Intel had reached the flat part of the graph ~2 months prior to this.
5) 65nm launched in Jan '06. Intel matched the 90nm yield levels ~3-4 months prior to this.
6) 45nm is now at about the 18 month point on the plot. If they are matching 65nm yields then they should be very close to the 90nm yield level now. The launch is believed to to be 2 months away and they should be well into the mature portion of the yield graph by then.

Intel Ticks On November 12

It defines Intel's cadence of process and design execution, but for AMD, "Tick - Tock" is beginning to sound like the countdown to its own dissolution. Every time Intel makes an announcement or a demo much like this week's IDF, AMD by comparison just looks more and more pitiful. It can't be said that AMD didn't bring this upon themselves. For the life of me I cannot comprehend why would AMD think that announcing plans to ship 3-core defects can be considered as stealing thunder while Intel talks about 4, 8 and 16 core CPUs.

Of course, the misery doesn't end there, while still trying to recover from its abysmal product launch, AMD is left with no choice but to look at their fluke 2.5Ghz Barcelona beaten to death by Harpertown, Intel’s soon to be launched, 45nm Xeons. The big difference is that the new Xeons with the 1600MHz bus has an official launch date and will be shipping in volume real soon.

The benchmarks confirms Intel's claim to floating point superiority, further increasing the performance gap with AMD. The only thing worse than stumbling is doing so while the competition executes efficiently.

From the TechReport:
Those new Opterons will certainly have their hands full with Intel's 45nm Xeons, though. The Xeon E5472 extends Intel's performance lead over the fastest quad-core Opteron we've seen yet, the 2.5GHz model 2360 SE. ...it looks like Intel will continue to lead in the server and workstation markets. The same may be true in other markets served by these same basic CPU designs, but only time will tell for sure.