So do you think Intel is going to stop fabbing Atom altogether?Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
Printable View
So do you think Intel is going to stop fabbing Atom altogether?Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
No, just saying that this is the beginning. With this crisis Intel closed some factory's and stopped production in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Their are just doing the Math...
Now is Atom, next can be Larabee....
Neither of these two things will happen in the next 3 years because both products need Intel's latest fab processes to be able to take on competitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
last time i checked TSMC produced 40nm products and Intel 45nm, altough TSMC is a generic process and not as good voor highly demanding things like complex CPU's (not including Atom, which is a simple low freq CPU)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
But TSMC can produce higly low freq GPU's, as long as they don't have to produce things above 2Ghz everything is fine i think
For Atom and Larrabee to meet Intel's goals for each product, they are going to require Intel's 32nm process.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDuLo
Also I don't agree that Atom is NOT a complex CPU when you take into account it's power characteristics and die size, nor do I feel TSMC's by comparison simplified 40nm process compares that well now to Intel's 45nm process, let alone the 32nm process Intel will use in Q4 09 and beyond.
Atom isn't complex, it is an in-order architecture for exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
btw, TSMC will not be able to use Intel's 32nm process, they don't have HKMG, and they don't use standard nodes (like 45nm for example) so how on earth will they be able to do Intel's 32nm process? Their next full node step is 28nm...
So only OoO architectures are complex? Yeah right. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDuLo
I never said they would.Quote:
btw, TSMC will not be able to use Intel's 32nm process
I never said they would.Quote:
they don't have HKMG, and they don't use standard nodes (like 45nm for example) so how on earth will they be able to do Intel's 32nm process?
Check your own post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I never stated that, i gave an example, OoO architectures are more complex then in-order architectures, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
so are you just :banana: ? are pretending to be?
Uhm, less random fanboy nonsense and more facts please.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
Go read again on why TSMC gonna make Atoms. Its all about competitors that are using ARM chips that Intel wants to use Atoms. Its about SoC designs and since Intel is a direct SoC competitor they dont want Intel to fab their SoC designs aswell.
Intel only stopped production in a 130nm factory that was to be closed a few months later anyway.
Or as another XS user said:Quote:
“The agreement is not about capacity, it is about strategy,” said Anand Chandrasekher, senior vice president and general manager of ultra mobility group at Intel.
strategy = flexibility-->broader market-->better compete with ARM for smartphones & mids.
We dont talk 100s of millions of x86 CPUs anymore. But several billions each year.
:down: a news thread about phenom2 releases and already 1,5 pages of intel/tsmc/lara/atom and other crap back and forth, nice news forums over here
There is no need for me to check my own post, but you should try re-reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDuLo
I was referring to TMSC's process not being good enough for Intel to simply hand over all production to them. Sure there will be some segments of the market that Intel would be able to leave to TMSC to fab, but the only chance Intel has to make a mark against a number of established players will be through the superiority of their manufacturing process.
With the design goals Intel are setting on future Atom derivatives, they clearly are not non-complex products to fab.Quote:
I never stated that, i gave an example, OoO architectures are more complex then in-order architectures, right?
I don't think you are a pretender. :ROTF:Quote:
so are you just :banana: ? are pretending to be?
Ok people,Atom has nothing to do with Phenom II so please stop the off topic posts already.:shakes:
1) you said THEY REQUIRE INTELS 32NM PROCESS, They refers to TSMC...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
2) your second part is true
3) Still i don't look at atom as a complex chip, comared to Conroe/Penryn, Atom isn't at al complex
The "They" I was referring to was the goals that Intel has set for Atom and Larrabee. i.e. cracking into the markets where their toughest competitors are.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDuLo
INFORMAL - I agree this conversation would obviously be better in the dedicated Atom/TMSC thread, but I don't have the power to merge content etc.
Anyway hopefully this conversation about Atom and Larrabee is over and the focus can switch back to PhII
Well, that's clear then, it doesnt take me to have an Intel threadnought in an AMD topic and create phailphlames:rolleyes:
Anyway, I think lots of sources, but also stores, are messing that L3 amount up badly. It's 2MB L2 and 6MB L3, not just 8MB or even worse, 8MB L3 (although it comes down to the same level of stupidity).
Im curious whether AMD is going to release FX CPU's sometime again with Deneb or just sod it all and have BE's:rolleyes: In the end FX's do require another special feature over BE's now since BE's took over FX's features.
Phenom II X4 910's are already up for pre-order, ~250 Euro. But not really interesting since it only has a 13x multi and so you'd need a motherboard able to do 300Mhz+ HTTto have some good results.
250E???? :shocked: That's some serious price gauging :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
It's pre-order... but indeed, pretty high and risky since not all boards go 300Mhz+ HTT:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR