From the AMD cc ongoing now.
Ontario will ship for revenue in Q4, launch early next year.
Llano has been pushed back to launch After Ontario, due to troubles with 32nm. Yields are not ramping as expected.
Bulldozer taped out, but will only sample to customers some time in H2 2010.
"Remains on track for 2011 launch" -- but it's gonna be very LATE 2011, if it isn't sampling to customers yet, and 32nm is having issues.
Bulldozer is still on track. Your statements on customer sampling and launch are based on your conjecture, not anything that Dirk said.
Well, when issues surface like 32nm has a problem, Llano is delayed, hasn't sampled to customers, it's not like nothing changed and everything is rosy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Dirk JUST said that Bulldozer would sample in H2 of this year. On the CC. Maybe you should take a listen?Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Rick Bergman said last Analyst Day that it would sample to customers in H1.
H2 vs H1. Note the difference?
Dirk also said "32nm SOI yield learning is behind schedule." Why? "GF has alot on their plate." LOL.
Dirk's also disappointed in AMD's server performance in Q2, and said AMD lost server share.
When the seeking alpha transcript is up, I'll link to it, and quote the relevant parts.
Well Llano has sampled, it was BD that Dirk said would only sample in H2 (vs Bergman's H1 goal)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
this is unfortunate news for consumers...
....wtff...do you have a link terrance?? come on man jeez.
WTF, it's from a freakin LIVE AUDIO WEBCAST. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by god_43
Seekingalpha will have the written transcript up within several hours after the call ends.
I am not aware that a sampling statement was ever made on bulldozer, that is why I am asking. I did hear Dirk say "Bulldozer remains on track".
wow, just in time for intel's first 22nm products :)Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Well, don't know what to tell you, JF, other than you'll see the H2 sampling statement in the transcript, when it is posted.
Not surprising he felt the need to comment on it as a report was due in some sense on that "goal" from last Analyst Day of BD sampling to customers in H1.
Dirk did say "remains on track for 2011", but it's clearly getting late in 2011, as sampling slips back from H1 to H2 of this year.
If I had to guess, I'd say BD will be lucky to make late Q3 on the desktop, and will be Q4, (if not H1 2012) for server products, due to the extra validation required.
I am listening, I heard the second half statement. That is not what I was questions. I am not aware that we ever made a statement about sampling in the past.
Yep, Rick Bergman, about 40:00 into the audio on his Analyst Day presentation of last year said that one of AMD's goals for 2010 was to sample Ontario, Llano, and Bulldozer, in the FIRST HALF of 2010, to customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Take a listen.
But if you did hear the H2 on the CC, then clearly you have to agree that a new server microarchitecture on a new process that only first samples to customers in H2 of year ain't gonna be in any SERVER products until very late next year, at best. There's just a heck of a lot of validation to get done for that segment. Even desktop, 12 months is pushing it for such new (tick & tock) parts.
You guys should just come out and move BD to "H2 2011" at this point, at least, obviously "H1 2011" ain't happening.
As a side note, Intel's adding 32nm capacity to ramp Sandy Bridge faster and "huge customer interest" makes perfect sense now, with this news. Llano & AMD's 32nm SOI pushed back means OEMs are going to need more Sandy Bridge parts to make up the difference in H1 2011.
From Bergman's presentation :
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5450/83949846.th.jpg
As can be seen,it's stated that the goal is 2010 for product sampling.No closer targets.
And Bulldozer validation process details you know(or to be precise:you don't know) are not nearly enough to let you make such a prognosis.
Remember terrace,just 2 weeks ago you even believed/suggested that BD hasn't even been taped out,let alone tested and sent to costumers.
As can be HEARD on the audio (@ 40:00 or so in), Bergman said FIRST HALF, despite the slide being the larger window. Go listen. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....ventID=2345413Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Where did I say that BD had not taped out yet, 2 weeks ago? Link, please.
In fact, I noted that JF's "32nm bulldozer pics" post at AMDzone implied that BD finally HAD taped out and that first silicon was moving through the fab in June, despite his later "corrections" and protestations.
IIRC you said we have no clue if it taped out and constantly asked JF-AMD ,here,and on SA forums to give you more information on the tape out and release date,even though the man couldn't do that for obvious reasons. Forgive me for not wasting time plowing thru your posting history looking for your pessimistic posts on Bulldozer(or AMD generally) since there is so many of them I wouldn't know where to start.
I see. In other words, I didn't say any such thing 2 weeks back.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
As for "pessimism", with today's 32nm SOI / Llano delay announcements, and BD "H2 samples" pushback, looks like my pessimism was reality. Sorry.
Tape out to release is ~1 year.Ontario taped out this year too and is a new design on a new node ,is Fusion, and is launching in Q4.That's less than one year from tape out to launch.
BD taped out sometime in H1.Do the math.
The great semantics debate begins.
Bulldozer taped out in 1H, I was not at liberty to comment because that is an engineering milestone and either Dirk or the head of engineering is allowed to comment officially on those things.
Also, on the call, Dirk said that Bulldozer remains "on track."
He can say that until he KNOWS it will not ship for revenue in some form until after Dec 31, 2011. In fact, "on track" is even more flexible than that, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Bobcat is on bulk 40nm, and is intended for the consumer market.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
BD is much larger, more complex, and intended for the server as well as high-end desktop market, and on 32nm SOI HKMG, a much more challenging process. And it didn't even TAPE OUT until *Q2*. Remember all the fans so sure it had taped out last November? :rolleyes:
Do the math. :rolleyes:
Transcript link:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2147...onference-call
The bad and the ugly:
However, in reaction to Ontario’s market opportunities and a slower than anticipated progress of 32 nm yield curve, we are switching the timing of the Ontario and Llano production ramps.
Llano production shipments are still expected to occur in the first half of next year. In the second quarter this year we also taped out the first 32 nm product based on our new high performance Bulldozer CPU core. We plan to begin sampling our Bulldozer based server and desktop processors in the second half of this year and remain on track for 2011 launches.
You can just imagine what BD yields must (or should I say "would") look like if Llano yields are so bad as to force a product ordering swap and schedule push out.
the thing is he does know. tape out is a significant milestone in development. after that it's fairly easy to know how things will go. it's sort of like the last piece of the puzzle. the only thing left is for glofo to ramp 32nm.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
"Llano production shipments are still expected to occur in the first half of next year. In the second quarter this year we also taped out the first 32 nm product based on our new high performance Bulldozer CPU core. We plan to begin sampling our Bulldozer based server and desktop processors in the second half of this year and remain on track for 2011 launches. These new processors will deliver significant performance improvements to the AMD platform."Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Post...creased-Sales/
"Sunnyvale demo'd the first Llano parts at Computex this year, but is keeping mostly quiet about the APU's launch date. Our sources have quietly told us that Llano is ramping at least as well as Shanghai did. That's very good news for a company still struggling to prove it can execute its roadmap solidly over the long term and it implies Llano will arrive on time within its target thermal and performance envelopes."
Looks like their sources were F.O.S., doesn't it? It's like the author didn't listen to the CC.Quote:
Originally Posted by richierich
Of course, AMD has now (re)defined "on time" for Llano to mean merely production shipments initiated on or before the end of June, 2011.
You caught that, right? Before it was "appearing in consumer products in H1" and now it is "STILL planned for *production shipments* in H1". A very liberal usage of the word "still".
And to think some here were saying, "hey Llano was demoed behind closed doors at Computex... it could start production shipments in Q3, and launch in Q4!!!!!!!1"
OMG, you don't actually believe this, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
You think from tape-out, it's smooth, predictable sailing to a production MPU? The last piece of the puzzle? The engineering teams would die laughing.
It's not.
perhaps you can explain what could go wrong. im sure you know.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
NRE costs for bulldozer are virtually done, maybe a metal spin iff necessary. it's only a manufacturing problem now.
btw dont take what i say out of context. a tape out doesnt guarantee anything. if AMD says they are on track after a tape out then that does mean something.
From tape out it sounds like Q2 2011 for BD is a more realistic estimate.
because its terrance....lol too bad xtreme sys does not have a block feature like digg does?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
OMG... do you need a hug..?Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
I'm not sure what Diggs block feature is like, but you can ignore users. I think I'm on a few lists myself, despite my overwhelming charm :D
Anyway, I've gouged about half the posts in this thread out. I'm leaving the thread itself as I think a commentary on new AMD parts discussed in an official AMD communique from the top is valid... even if the discussion gets a bit rabid... but let's try to keep it in order, eh?
Llano taped out in Q4 2009, and is due to ship in H1 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
BD taped out in Q2 2010, on the same process, but a more complex design, larger die, more difficult to yield, and requires more validation (at least for the server parts).
BD isn't going to ship in Q2 2011.
No its not. Validation is the most unpredictable part. Horrible bugs can ruin your day and they might show up at any time during the validation process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
People tend to forget this is AMD's entirely new core since like 10 years. Can you imagine all the caveats in the multithreaded front end ?
I think the TLB fiasco with K10 is still fresh in the mind of any AMD engineer ( apparently forgotten here ). You might need to respin some layers or worse, do a significant redesign. Add 6-9 months for every respin and $30-40m in costs.
It would be interesting to find out at what stepping is BD sampling to customers.
At last, I haven't heard any new official launch date, all are speculations yet...
I'm sure that AMD has separate engineering teams working on these obviously very different chips. Do you honestly believe that you can make predictions about one based on the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
But it's not the cpus, it is the process. Llano is being delayed because the 32nm process isn't ready. A natural logical inference would be to assume that BD is also impacted in some way by this. Technically, they only committed to 2011 launch. Because of 32nm issues, it could very well shift from June 2011 to October 2011. For the masses, no delay occurred, it is still 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
But for the company internal road maps it is a slip which impact revenue and the competitive position.
Right, the only thing they have in common is the process and apparently that will be ready 1H.
I think you are wasting your time.He now believes it takes 1.5-2 years from tape out to bring out a design like this to market :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
He also seems to forget how modular this thing is.They need a single module part to work like it should. Desktop is 4 of those on a die,server is a MCM just like MC.If underlying design has no showstopper bugs,Q2 2011 is a valid target for desktop and Q3 for servers.
some guys like flame AMD vs Intel think...:-( And again the same people...
an useless thread... again...:rolleyes:
maybe ban for flame guy Terrace? We have on one czech forum cards. First u can get Yellow card, than second admonition and Red card. With red card u cant writing to forum think one month (than u can normal user and should be carefuly, because again u can get Yellow card etc etc). And the biggest sh*ts, spammers etc get black card and blocked IP :-)
?? 12 months is normal. A new uarch with a troubled process can easily get you to 15 months. It's doing so well that altough it taped out some time ago it will be sampled to customer sometine this year. Everyone is free to drawn their own conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
They should hire you to show them how the work is done. Probably the uncore part doesn't matter, "it's enough for a single module to work like it should". Care to tell me where K10 floped ? Was it the core or the uncore ?Quote:
He also seems to forget how modular this thing is.They need a single module part to work like it should. Desktop is 4 of those on a die,server is a MCM just like MC.
That puts it on top of Llano. Would be quite a feat to get it so soon out.Quote:
If underlying design has no showstopper bugs,Q2 2011 is a valid target for desktop and Q3 for servers.
If it's true, it can't be helped. I am still looking forward to BD though.
Does anyone know the cache sizes for BD product line-up? I hope it's more than 6MB for L3, 8-12MB would be nice. Wouldn't mind paying a bit more for them.
yes its true, 32 mn process is problematic for AMD now, every products are delayed for now, we will see next month maybe will be situation different. But Bulldozer was expected in Q2/2011 and still is there for launching.
PS. Look, how long Intel prepare his 32nm, first ES samples was out for ONE YEAR before Retail product on shelves.
Some questions about Zambezi, 2 models 4-core & 8-cores, will they appear on different timelines? Will they use different sockets and cache sizes ie 8-core launching later on a different socket/mb? The current socket is quite old, it doesn't make sense to stick to it, maybe just for BDv1, but later BD & beyond should migrate to a new socket. Server counterparts are already using G34 sockets.
Q4, 2005: Intel introduces affordable 65nm quad core processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Q4, 2007: Intel introduces affordable 45nm quad core processors.
Q4, 2009: oops...
Q1, 2011: Intel introduces affordable 32nm quad core processors.
Good to hear all this "much better than expected" "faster ramp", "flawless
execution" talk.....
Regards, Hans
Barcelona erratum was L3 related,but now AMD has plenty of experience with the new shared cache concept and one would expect them to learn from their mistakes.I again state that if the module part has no showstopper bugs then this thing could easily launch in Q2 next year,on desktop. Server stuff one quarter later.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
And the process node troubles can be dealt in time,it's just a learning curve.Dirk also said that in just the last couple of weeks they made great progress with the yields on the 32nm node,so I'd expect by the end of the year they will hit close or relatively close to the mark they would be comfortable with when it comes to yields.
Nobody knows ATM will the 2 variants launch at the same time,my guess is yes.Both will work in the AM3 socket(present and future AM3r2 boards),provided BIOS support is there.Quote:
Originally Posted by pokipoki
Looks to me like you're highlighting the fact that Intel took full advantage of their process lead to cash-in (akin to AMD and DX11). What has affordability got to do with process execution? Last I checked, 32nm hexacores were available for sale in 2009. More cores on a die, bigger cache, etc. thanks to process shrink. Nothing to sniff at considering the latest news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans de Vries
Well not really.
First where the 32nm dualcores, released 7 January 2010.
Hexacores came in March.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Thanks for the info, and LOL at some of the comments on this thread.
I stand corrected, but two things we need to bear in mind is Intel's dilemma of pitching their extreme chips against each other; i7 975 vs i7 980x (which is still the biggest value offering in the ultra high end segment to date, imo). Then you have partners/oems preferring q1 launches to q4 launches. I can still hear the whine from some enthusiasts on this site when it appeared Intel was holding on to 32nm release even though it was clear they had a product ready to ship. In fact, some people had access to retail versions long before the release. Again, all these things are market dynamics coming into play, rather than process execution. I bet Intel under pressure would rush products to market a little faster than have done lately, whether OEMs complain or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Don't be so naive. The bottom line is money and from that standpoint Intel has had flawless execution with their process releases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans de Vries
Hans and naive?Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Take of your blue glasses and read up a bit before you post again. :down:
again you miss my point. if AMD has already taped it out and they say it is on track it is because they already know the majority of the bugs that need to be fixed and how long it should take. these horrible bugs you talk about are rare. they tend to show up in niche uses, like a certain instruction sequence, which they test for using automated test vectors.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
furthermore today's verification is vigorous compared to just a few years ago. fpga simulations provide real time turnarounds to keep productivity maximized. with the cost of masks going up exponentially respins wont be common anymore. that's a major focus of vlsi design today. debugging is done before tape out.
32nm quad core may come out late this yearQuote:
Originally Posted by Hans de Vries
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...d.php?t=255511
There are 32nm quad-cores already, of the xeon category. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
so intel says they do a new node every 2 years on the dot, but still slows down and had to remove a decent portion of their staff like the rest of the world due to the market conditions.
no need to act like intels delays were due to a blessing, they are not perfect, and are impacted like any other business. the only difference is 1 billion dollars for them is not the same as 1 billion dollars to another company. GF might have to slow down more than intel because such cashflow is not available.
btw im curious, how hard was the release of i7? a big core with a new design, should be comparable to struggles we may see with BD
But those are not based on Sandy-bridge architectureQuote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
No, no, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Yes they are blue indeed, but I get paid very well to wear them. Tick tock is working very well for us and 32nm was released at the beginning of the year and has ramped better then any other process. Yes ramped, decision was made to ramp 32nm with our server parts first which by the way we are selling like hot cakes. To understand why this was done just take a look at our margins. 32nm ramped on server first, 45nm which has already been paid for and tweaked so yields and wip turns are at a record levels so our cost per wafer is great even for our lowest end consumer parts like Atom. To use the metric of "affordable" to gauge how we are doing in our process releases is indeed naive. There are several metrics that have to be met to keep our margins met and more importantly to keep us employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
AMD released more specific info last night: Bulldozer taped out in Q2, and will sample during this H2.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilOne
Now we want to know... is first silicon BACK from the Fab yet? Does it work? Enough to boot Windows, Linux, etc, yet? All 4 modules working reliably? Power ok? Running at a reasonable ~2Ghz speed for this point in the process?
If these things go well, I expect AMD to talk about them somehow, via demos or interviews. If they go poorly, I expect silence, along with the excuse that "we can't mention details for competitive reasons."
(You may recall that this excuse was given earlier this year, when the question of BD having taped out or not was asked. Oh, no, AMD would never give that information out, because it would give too much away to Intel, came the reply. And then what happens? The very quarter it DOES tape out, AMD talks about it, and names the 3-month tape-out window on their earnings call. I guess Dirk wanted to help out Intel? :shakes: )
I better be able to get a BD core next year or I'll switch to Intel forever. That's all I'm saying. :mad:
this thread is the lulz
Does anyone not expect the OP to try to spin things at this point?
?? This is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Nehalem has more states than atoms in the universe ( that's a quote from the chief designer ); I doubt Bulldozer is any less complex ( ok, maybe it is since it lacks full SMT ), either way, your claims come against anything the validation teams are saying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/te...5547.html?_r=1
Validation is harder and harder with each new generation, the complexity increase is astounding.
Not really. Threads like these always go one way. Some AMD or Intel hater posts a semi-legitimate thread with some passive aggressive trolling. Then AMD bashers and Intel scorners duke it out for pages. The real casualty in cases like these is logical debate. There is no way to "win" the argument using logic or reason since everything is open to attack based on gut feelings, hunches, and desires.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
my rule of thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
a debate is between 2 winners
an argument is between 2 losers
Hey, but they are fun to watch in a macabre kind of way... :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Sort of like a train wreck, in slow motion. :cool:
I love how certain you are about BD being late and crap. You have been predicting BD being Q3/Q4'11 or even 2012 for years now. It looks like you are taking every new negative rumor and bit of bad news and trying to fit them into the late/crap narrative. If that's the narrative you want to build then fine, but don't try to come back later and claim you were just being objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
I freely admit the possibility of BD being extremely late. I'll also admit that it could be a dud architecture. But I don't see enough hard evidence to suggest that they are the only possibilities. You seem to have totally rejected the possibility that BD will deliver competitive performance and/or in a reasonable timeframe. If BD taped out in Q2 and things go relatively smoothly then 12 months isn't unrealistic.
Yes, Intel and AMD cashed in on the lack of competition. Despite some people's attempt to obfuscate that fact, "cashing in" is exactly what we can expect from Intel (or any company) if AMD (their competition) fails to deliver a competitive product. It's basic economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
A year late already and you call that still on track ? :rofl: You really know how to take it easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD.com - News
That info hasn't been current for awhile, sorry. This isn't 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
You are late to the news party,3 years late to be precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Nice logic there. A project is on track compared to what ? What is the reference date? Because if that's constantly changed with every news release from the company, then a project can never be late.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Any sane person would see that BD is already 1 year late and counting compared to the original plan.
Regardless of what's being discussed, from a simple philosophical and logical point of view, if it ends as he originally predicted "for years" and that is not objective, than what the hell is objective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
It means the guy is either the new Nostradamus or he used his critical thinking and not relied on faith.
I don't think he rejected anything. Just that the uarch rework done in 2007-2009 means they originally aimed too low and now the process blips introduce a feeling of uncertainty whether the original plans for a mid 2011 launch are still valid.Quote:
I freely admit the possibility of BD being extremely late. I'll also admit that it could be a dud architecture. But I don't see enough hard evidence to suggest that they are the only possibilities. You seem to have totally rejected the possibility that BD will deliver competitive performance and/or in a reasonable timeframe. If BD taped out in Q2 and things go relatively smoothly then 12 months isn't unrealistic.
The reference point is against the most recent roadmap target of "2011". Of course it could change, obviously it has quite a bit already.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Huh ? If the latest roadmap is always the reference point, please explain how a project can be late ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
What kind of cognitive reasoning is this ?
if we imagine that amd right now said BD is put on pause for 5 years, would intel continue to build to 22nm and lower? or just pause and eat some nice profits? and if they did pause, would you say they are late, or just realigned their schedule because outside factors make this the best choice?
didnt amd get slowed down when intel changed the sse5 specs? (or avx or whatever it was)
i'm not an architect so i cant tell you how many states a modern cpu has. AMD has taken Occam's razor into consideration, something intel hasn't done very well. for example look at how they handle OoO/register renaming in current cpu's.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
that doesnt really go against what i am saying. if you catch a bug after the cpu is in the field then you are screwed. if it is at wafer or package level it's not nearly as bad. barton would get fired if there was a recall on nehalem.
but they get better and better at it. productivity has been increasing despite the size of design teams staying about the same. increases in complexity has leveled off over the years mainly because they wont build a cpu that they cant verify in time.Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/te...5547.html?_r=1
Validation is harder and harder with each new generation, the complexity increase is astounding.
an example would be removing all domino logic from the datapaths in nehalem and switching to pure static cmos logic. this is the exact opposite of P4 which had absurdly complex circuits, to the point where they had to add more pipeline stages to keep the FO4 delay at around 10, an amazing feat but useless in the end product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
i think im going to save that quote for a future argument
...if you would know from where the word argumenet orgines from you would make such nonsense statements... also you can't have a discussion without arguments..Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
You should better exchange argument with opinion, cause an argument you can prove or disprove by hard facts and or logical reasoning... and opinion on the other had is always an opinion regardless of facts and logic. :p:
Well one thing is for certain, opinion raises a lot of interesting question about the failure that is larabee. I assume you realise that?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
So you build an argument from an absurd premises and then use it infer on Intel's action ? Allow me to refuse entering in this logical fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
I work with projects which span over 5-7 years, from the rfq to end of production. Every project has an internal time lime established from the start by the PM and they typically use "gates" ( important ones called milestones ) to measure progress. Everything is referenced to original gate or milestone.
We do not know the original time schedule for BD. We do know however when the company offered the first external schedules ( roadmaps ) for BD. The original roadmap is our reference point.That the project couldn't keep to it from various reasons, is another issues altogether.
Nehalem was late by 2 years ( planned for 2006 ) - it was redone in 2003, Sandy bridge is also late by 2 years - redone in 2007 IIRC, nothing new.
It simply means they aimed too low and had to readjust their goals.
They use the original format which is more complex and includes the one Intel adopted.Quote:
didnt amd get slowed down when intel changed the sse5 specs? (or avx or whatever it was)
Watches thread..:D
So how many of the Pro-Intel guys in this thread are like savantu; guys who are linked to Intel projects? Seems like way too many on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
exactly ... iirc phenom I had some problem that they pushed back phenom II so in that same way bulldozer could be late 2 years .... 2011 instead of 2009 because of problems along the way with another cpu in the past ..... they respect life cycle of each generation so they maximise the proffit on each generation to recoup the R&D money right?
the idea has very little to do with facts, and much more about the emotion of people involved (and no i have not a clue for its definition, english is not my strong point, just my first and only language)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
a debate is 2 people with facts and for helping direct a decision, very restrictive, and very formal (excluding politics, lol)
an argument is 2 people who think talking louder makes them more right, i say its between 2 losers because the moment a debate turns into an argument, cops get involved and your both on tv looking like idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
It seems you were late to bulldozer related news considering you wrote bulldozer was always scheduled for 2011. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
This thing is a year late according to AMD, but it's employee says it's still on track. :shocked:
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument
Reference point is the latest roadmap and latest server schedule update.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
Bulldozer @ 45nm was a scraped project and it is known for 3 years.The new BD core is improved version,you can call it Version2 if you like and although it's related to the one you linked,is another project done on a smaller node.Changes are done on the various core parts(fpu being the most obvious one) and it truly warrants a new name.
You need to inform yourself better before getting inside these kind of arguments.Remember,this is not AT forumz or THG forumz.
The current target is 2011. So when we are talking right now about the product being on track we are talking about in reference to the current target.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Your "but what if it changes" objection is irrelevant to the CURRENT discussion. Of course it could change in the future, and if it does then BD would be late in reference to the date in the current discussion and on track in reference to the future target. But since we don't know if it will be rescheduled in the future the most logical use of the term on target is in relation to the most current estimates and not on old estimates or future hypotheticals.
By your logic any company that has to reschedule a project can never be on target again. As if companies can't decide on more realistic targets when the real world doesn't cooperate.
This is a false dichotomy. A person could easily could easily take something on faith and end up being right without having come to that conclusion through logic or magical powers. My team is so great I'm sure they will win. When they do it's proof that I was right all along regardless of how it happened and when they don't it's an exception. Sound like any sports fans you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
What "mid" 2011 plans? Last I heard it was all of 2011 so it could be Q1 through Q4 and not be late in reference to the current timetable. That encompasses both my estimate and his (except the 2012 part), but he has yet to acknowledge that. Neither have you.Quote:
I don't think he rejected anything. Just that the uarch rework done in 2007-2009 means they originally aimed too low and now the process blips introduce a feeling of uncertainty whether the original plans for a mid 2011 launch are still valid.
As for what he has rejected, he can speak for himself. All we have so far seems like a rejection of the possibility, though he's free to say otherwise.
Quote:
If I had to guess, I'd say BD will be lucky to make late Q3 on the desktop, and will be Q4, (if not H1 2012) for server products, due to the extra validation required.
Quote:
You guys should just come out and move BD to "H2 2011" at this point, at least, obviously "H1 2011" ain't happening.
Quote:
BD isn't going to ship in Q2 2011.
You know, there is huge pink elephant on the sofa and nobody seems to notice it.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
You apply a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning" : since the reference point is the latest roadmap, a project can never miss the target because the target is linked to the latest roadmap.
Roadmap -> target -> new roadmap -> new target. You're always on target.
Is it that hard to grasp ?
I don't frequent any of those, but you seem much more familiar to them. Guess it explains the reasoning then.Quote:
Bulldozer @ 45nm was a scraped project and it is known for 3 years.The new BD core is improved version,you can call it Version2 if you like and although it's related to the one you linked,is another project done on a smaller node.Changes are done on the various core parts(fpu being the most obvious one) and it truly warrants a new name.
You need to inform yourself better before getting inside these kind of arguments.Remember,this is not AT forumz or THG forumz.
Who said I'm linked to Intel projects ? I'm not. I work in a different industry.There are other Intel employees around here, some even posted in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by richierich
Precisely, that's how things work in real life. It's late compared to the original plan. Having to reschedule means missing the target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
It is true for Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Airbus 380, Tesla Volt, Intel cpus, AMD cous, tin cans, etc, etc.
There was a game I saw being discussed here which was scheduled to arrive something like 2004 and they constantly changed it and adapted it to new features and it dragged on for so long that they had to cancel it this year and the developer closed. According to your reasoning, they were always on target up to the last moment. Very reassuring....
We agree here. That's why I said " he is either a new Nostradamus ( works on blind faith that AMD will screw up ) or he has excellent critical thinking and feels the way things are going.Quote:
This is a false dichotomy. A person could easily could easily take something on faith and end up being right without having come to that conclusion through logic or magical powers. My team is so great I'm sure they will win. When they do it's proof that I was right all along regardless of how it happened and when they don't it's an exception. Sound like any sports fans you know?
True, I would say the consensus went for Q2/Q3 which is mid 2011.Quote:
What "mid" 2011 plans? Last I heard it was all of 2011 so it could be Q1 through Q4 and not be late in reference to the current timetable. That encompasses both my estimate and his (except the 2012 part), but he has yet to acknowledge that. Neither have you.
Yes, you missed the target. So you make new targets. You don't just sit around and say "I have no clue when we will get it out now". We are discussing on target in relation to the current targets not missed targets or hypothetical new targets because that would be illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
No, I'd suggest that they missed a huge string of targets and were either behind target or on target for their last projected target before they closed depending on how realistic it was.Quote:
There was a game I saw being discussed here which was scheduled to arrive something like 2004 and they constantly changed it and adapted it to new features and it dragged on for so long that they had to cancel it this year and the developer closed. According to your reasoning, they were always on target up to the last moment. Very reassuring....
Or maybe they had sloppy management that didn't set new targets and push to meet them once the first was missed.
I see, then we agree. But how was I supposed to know how you felt about Nostradamus? Some people believe he had actual predictive ability (I'm not one of them). I'd also suggest that Nostradamus wasn't operating on typical blind faith and probably more on delusions, hallucinations, mental disorders, etc. Not (usually) a great analogy for the typical fan based thought process.Quote:
We agree here. That's why I said " he is either a new Nostradamus ( works on blind faith that AMD will screw up ) or he has excellent critical thinking and feels the way things are going.
Ok, but I'm not really talking about the consensus but what individuals are espousing.Quote:
True, I would say the consensus went for Q2/Q3 which is mid 2011.
No wonder why next to nobody takes you seriously.With that attitude it's a no-brainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
BTW,I never posted at those places but I know the reputation and poor level of validity and fanboysm that rules there.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
First, I think that AMD has executed exceptionally well lately. They have had periods of time in the past where they have performed exceptional, and times when they have fallen flat on their face.
As far as process goes, AMD has a mixed bag. Their move to copper interconnects was arguably the first time in the history of semiconductors when ANY company has ever held a process advantage over Intel. As a result the not only captured the frequency crown (and were the first commercial processor to exceed 1Ghz), they held the performance crown as well.
Since then, Intel has held the undisputed lead in process technology and shrinks. Flat out impressive.
As far as architecture goes, IMHO, AMD has simply owned Intel. Intel has been following AMD for about a decade now. I am looking to see a SB successor that imitates BD in the future.
My conclusion is this. AMD usually makes very good design decisions. They usually execute the design well (with the notable exception of the TLB bug); however, AMD spends its life in the shadow of Intel's process lead ..... as they have done with 32nm. It is remarkably difficult to compete from a full process node behind ..... and yet AMD is still in the running.
It is not difficult for me to believe that AMD may flounder on 32nm HKMG. Many thought that K10 was a failure; however, IMHO it was simply a process failure. At 2.2Ghz, K10 was no match for Core 2. Today 45nm to 45nm, PhenomII is more than a match for Core 2. Imagine if AMD had released Phenom at 3.0Ghz and greater.
The BD design details that I have been able to see or speculate show a very competent and potent design. If it can be released in 2011 (H1 would be better than H2), I suspect it will be a strong competitor to SB.
If AMD again falters on their process transition, things won't look pretty for them with respect to BD.
For those that believe that Intel is not fallible, remember i740? How about Larrabee? Itanic anyone? P4?
I am hoping that AMD executes well. The last system I purchased was a Core 2 which I thought I could update inexpensively to a quad in the future. Time has passed and passed. Had I went with AMD, I could have a quad core on the cheep that would kick butt in my video encoding tasks. (AMD 3.4Ghz ~$170. Intel equivalent at this price = Core 2 quad @2.66Ghz).
For those that prefer Intel, you should be rooting for BD too. Wouldn't you like to have a Core i7 at 3.2Ghz for under $150.00?
well said OneEng
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng
...this is one of the best posts i have read on here! i would sig you......but its too long.
Did we already forget about Conroe aka C2D?Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng
K10 a better arch then Nehalem? Definitely not, IMO of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng