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