[RUMOR] zambezi a.k.a am3 bulldozer for sale december 2010!!!

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-19-2010, 08:36 AM
OhNoes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

since i have MSIs most popular AM2+ overclocking mobo, i assumed they would, but yes, for 125$, it was an impulse buy. about a week after my purchase it was confirmed they are working on one, and now its just a waiting game

Yeah, I saw that TD ad with MIR and bing cashback. I almost bit too, but it would have been a complete build so I thought twice about it. Hope they release that bios soon.
05-19-2010, 08:39 AM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoes!

Intel extreme series cpus are always 1k. With Gulftown, you actually get better power consumption with 32nm and 50% more cores, so the best extreme series deal so far for both AMD and Intel. Too bad Intel is going to follow the trend of charging 1k+ for the fastest desktop processor.

3 or more quarters without any mainstream (or remotely close to it) Gulftowns is outrageous.
If the competition was more severe I'm sure we would already have a 32nm replacement for i7 920 (and for a while at that).
05-19-2010, 08:43 AM
Sn0wm@n

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

3 or more quarters without any mainstream (or remotely close to it) Gulftowns is outrageous.
If the competition was more severe I'm sure we would already have a 32nm replacement for i7 920 (and for a while at that).

then intel's cash cow need to protest and stop giving milk .... whatever this methaphor means
05-19-2010, 08:56 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

3 or more quarters without any mainstream (or remotely close to it) Gulftowns is outrageous.
If the competition was more severe I'm sure we would already have a 32nm replacement for i7 920 (and for a while at that).

Intel is still limited by 32 nm. production capacity. They still can not meet demand for 32 nm. dual-cores (especialy in mobile space). Introducing low cost 6-core cpu is less profitable in this situation and may create another unmet demand.
05-19-2010, 09:04 AM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

Intel is still limited by 32 nm. production capacity. They still can not meet demand for 32 nm. dual-cores (especialy in mobile space). Introducing low cost 6-core cpu is less profitable in this situation and may create another unmet demand.

There, you said it.
It's the competition issue, clearly... They are milking the market.
I'm not saying they can make millions of cheap 6 core chips, though. But making so many chips isn't necessary either.
05-19-2010, 09:12 AM
Manicdan

i always thought the first chips you make on a new process should be for mobile, the ability to get 20-40% better battery life, or higher clocks in the same power envelope, i thought would let the get a massive lead for the mobile market since those chips are smaller and can be sold for more. but honestly i dont think intel wants to compete with 32nm against their own 45nm, or amds 65nm (which is just now on 45 nm with a serious effort). so in reveres, once amd is on 32nm, are they going to release mobile chips right away or wait over a year after desktop is out?
05-19-2010, 09:40 AM
Musho

All this would make the end a 2010 an interesting period! The release of X25-M G3, rumored release of Bulldozer, rumored release of mainstream 6-cores from Intel, ATI Southern Islands and most definitely more I'm missing or haven't heard about yet.

So many toys, so little time (and money :()
05-19-2010, 09:44 AM
ajaidev

its so funny that you all think that intel does not have any problems with 32nm there is a small problem there and that is causing a problem with the production
05-19-2010, 09:50 AM
Musho

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajaidev

its so funny that you all think that intel does not have any problems with 32nm there is a small problem there and that is causing a problem with the production

Do you happen to have a source? Not saying I don't believe you, but it'd be interesting to read up on :) Thanks! :up:
05-19-2010, 10:11 AM
superrugal

The cost of 32nm is too high, and according to the lately news, Intel's 32nm products are in short supply. Looks like Intel has very serious problem with 32nm products.
05-19-2010, 10:15 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by superrugal

The cost of 32nm is too high, and according to the lately news, Intel's 32nm products are in short supply. Looks like Intel has very serious problem with 32nm products.

So serious problems that you can by 32nm clarkdale and westmere everywhere... :rolleyes:
05-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Particle

Every new process takes a while to flood demand for it. Intel's 45nm launch was much, much worse. It doesn't in and of itself indicate problems so much as high demand for a ramping process.
05-19-2010, 11:00 AM
terrace215

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajaidev

its so funny that you all think that intel does not have any problems with 32nm there is a small problem there and that is causing a problem with the production

Considering they just announced they are pulling in the startup of the other 2 32nm fabs, it would seem like they've solved whatever issue you are claiming, unless you're claiming lower than expected yields.

They've also said the demand-backlog for the new parts will be met by the end of this quarter.

So... going to need a little more specificity, please.
05-19-2010, 11:07 AM
informal

Yeah it's just high demand,I doubt they have any serious problem.
05-19-2010, 09:35 PM
qcmadness

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoes!

Intel extreme series cpus are always 1k. With Gulftown, you actually get better power consumption with 32nm and 50% more cores, so the best extreme series deal so far for both AMD and Intel. Too bad Intel is going to follow the trend of charging 1k+ for the fastest desktop processor.

On the other hand, if Intel were to release only unlocked gulftowns from henceforth and charged $300 for them (something that makes no sense from an economic standpoint in terms of fab investment and profit, as well as premium on innovation and performance), two things will happen:

1. AMD would take Intel to court
2. AMD would cease to exist as a cpu-making business (and Intel may have to be split up)

Cheaper gulftown comes in the form of sandybridge. It'll be here soon. AMD is pricing aggressively ONLY because their highend is only able to compete with Intel's mainstream so it'll make no sense to charge a premium. They'll have no problem charging a premium if they could. I'm sure their marketing department has done all the math.

Didn't you know before you picked one up? Or the pricing was too irresistible? lol

intel does not want to kill amd
but to MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE

why do you want to reduce ASP when you don't need to?
05-19-2010, 10:10 PM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musho

Do you happen to have a source? Not saying I don't believe you, but it'd be interesting to read up on :) Thanks! :up:

Intel does not openly disclose such things so no source. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrace215

Considering they just announced they are pulling in the startup of the other 2 32nm fabs, it would seem like they've solved whatever issue you are claiming, unless you're claiming lower than expected yields.

They've also said the demand-backlog for the new parts will be met by the end of this quarter.

So... going to need a little more specificity, please.

I am claiming that and the problem was very prevalent in the i9 A0's the problem has something to do with the voltage sensitivities on some chips.

I have heard of reject chips that ran them selfs to the ground on normal volts.

The problem is being fixed and soon will be done with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Yeah it's just high demand,I doubt they have any serious problem.

Lower than estimated production is a problem they will get it fixed and i think laptop i3/i5's are in more demand than the desktop ones could be wrong tough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Particle

Every new process takes a while to flood demand for it. Intel's 45nm launch was much, much worse. It doesn't in and of itself indicate problems so much as high demand for a ramping process.

The 45nm had problems and even it that the initial production capability was reduced a lot and that was fixed after 2-3 months of inception same will be the case with the 32nm process.
05-19-2010, 10:41 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by superrugal

The cost of 32nm is too high, and according to the lately news, Intel's 32nm products are in short supply. Looks like Intel has very serious problem with 32nm products.

Oddly, AMD, IBM and Intel all claim shrinks are extremely cost effective -- it is costs that drives Moore's Law.

There are two ways to look at limited supply. Either a) production problems or b) demand has simply out stripped supply. There is not enough information available to know which one is the major contributor, but given the trend QoQ and YoY shipments in units, Q1 record unit shipments, then I suspect the latter.
05-20-2010, 05:49 AM
Hans de Vries

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Oddly, AMD, IBM and Intel all claim shrinks are extremely cost effective -- it is costs that drives Moore's Law.

There are two ways to look at limited supply. Either a) production problems or b) demand has simply out stripped supply. There is not enough information available to know which one is the major contributor, but given the trend QoQ and YoY shipments in units, Q1 record unit shipments, then I suspect the latter.

It may have something to do with the 18 months delay in the 32nm
Lithography scanners from Nikon which Intel uses. The NSR-S620 was
originally planned for Q4, 2008 and it seems it is just now starting to ship.

It's still not listed as an official product on Nikon's website.

http://nikon.com/products/precision/.../nsr/index.htm

Intel can use the NSR-S610C but that one is really only qualified for 45nm
production which could cause yield issues in 32nm production I presume.

Regards, Hans

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page