...listening to the ecosystem about what they want to see from us in a road map.
We have a menu of things that we can do both incrementally and with new cores that are cause for discussions. So right now, our belief is that through the 2007 time frame, using new implementations of the existing core with extensions and memory technology is the right answer. Then, roughly in 2007, we'll see the introduction of a brand new core design kind of under the covers.
Does that include a plan to offer quad-core processors by 2007?
Yes.
It seems that Intel has got a lot of different products coming right out of the gate in 2006, whereas — and this is the perception by some analysts — AMD will still be sitting on the same technology early next year.
I give Intel great credit for creating a myth. *laughs*
They've cancelled a heck of a lot more projects than we've cancelled. What I hear is the other guy is showing stuff that they're not going to ship for six to nine months and then comparing it to our stuff that's shipping today. What we showed in the analyst meeting was a road map that says, "Look guys, we have a track record of delivering improved performance every quarter." And so, if they're showing stuff that's six to nine months away, that's two to three of our steps away. And so, if they're having to show six-to-nine-months stuff against ours and saying it's kind of competitive to what we've got today, then by the time we get there, the shipping gap should be the same as the shipping gap today. So Intel, show me what it is that you're specifically going to deliver to the market that changes this.
Another point that analysts point to is that Intel has an advantage in bringing 65nm process technology to the semiconductor market faster.
There are two pieces to that statement. The first part focuses on when Intel will ship its first 65nm technology. The second piece of that statement questions when Intel's promise really yields in shipments and volume. AMD's philosophy is fundamentally different than Intel's. AMD tends to not buy the newest technology at the earliest possible date it's available. We tend to buy the technology a little bit later. The processes they put in place are focused around what they call automated precision manufacturing. What it allows them to do is tune the manufacturing process much tighter than when a general layer of silicon line is run.
So if you look at the yield ramps in terms of the time that it takes from when you start producing the technology until it hits essentially sustainable manufacturing yields, that time for AMD is much faster than for someone else. So the question to me is not necessarily when you introduce the technology. I mean if you want to ship when you have very limited volumes, that's one discussion. The other discussion is when that technology is broadly shipping in the industry.
From that perspective, I think we're in the position we need to be; we're fine. Besides, the last time I looked, people don't buy nanometres, they buy end-user performance.
The man you're replacing as chief technology officer, Fred Weber, is called by many people the father of Opteron. What kinds of conversations did you two have before he left, and what advice did he give you?
Fred and I have known each other for some time, so this was not a surprise that he was going to go do some other stuff in the venture capital world. But his thought was that I should continue to build on what he established.
Did he put his arm around you and say something like, "All right kid, I worked hard on this. Don't screw it up?"
Fred has done a great job. I won't screw it up. *laughs*
What can you put in your new chips — Opteron or Athlon or even Turion — that's going to change the mind of Dell chief executive Kevin Rollins?
I have no idea. I think Kevin's decision on AMD is a business decision, not a technical decision. That's my personal opinion.
Suppose Dell adopts AMD chips in volume amounts. Do you have a personal opinion about being able to supply this new wave of customers? There was some concern before Fab 36 in Dresden opened that you weren't going to be able to make enough.
I think that concern is gone. We've talked to analysts about both our fab capacity and our flexible capacity to stay on top of the volumes that we expect.
