Printable View
CMT probably is better than hyperthreading, but that alone isn't going to make bulldozer faster than Sandy Bridge. Core 2 Duo didn't have an IMC and still took the performance crown from AMD after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
I wouldn't be surprised to see CMT in haswell, or even a combination of CMT and HT.
if i had a thank you button i would use it now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I don't think AMD is as interested in blowing Intel away at the high end as they are in blowing them away in mainstream with their new APUs. Bulldozer will be an excellent chip at a good price point. However, Llano and in the future, Trinity are where their real profits will be.
Trinity apparently can run Deus Ex. You can bet that this is where they are placing their main focus. High end enthusiasts represents a small part of the market. They have to increase profits in order to better fund R&D for said products, and you aren't going to do that with lower volume products. Take my company for example. I work in the commercial HVAC industry. The residential business makes all of the money, and our profits are insignificant next to their billions. So its not enough to fund big projects. So we're all pretty much dependent on the biggest business. For AMD, that is mainstream.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/..._Notebook.html
Exactly, they need something that will bring them some money and expensive CPU's won't. Be it APU's or BD CPU's at ~$250Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
yeah i know it's shame,... anyway, this is surely the best simulator i have flight ............
At same time i can understand, peoples don't want forcibly put so much time to be able use the system of the plane, and want more " direct action... " ... but this is just the most perfect simulator i have ever seen... and seriously i was start to be in pain to play old simulator with really outdated graphics ( and the A10 graphics are just really nice, this is a nice addition over the extreme realism of the avionics of this simulators )
You know that a top crop cpu basically costs the same to make as the lowest end cpu, right? (yeah yeah i know thats not entirely true anymore with the drifferent masks for n-core cpus)Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
The higher the avg price they can sell there cpus, the higher the profit.
Hornet331, did you know that the CPU you sell as higher binned one, you will sell in 100s, and the same CPU which you bin lower and less pricier, you will sell in 100s of thousands. So tell me which way makes you more money?
All the money in GPU and CPU business comes from lower end stuff. That's where volume is.
Did my statement contradict that somehow?.... I talk about appels, you about bananas.Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
No he doesn't know that, because it isn't true. According to AMD's most recent Quarterly Filing, the APUs represent a lower cost product. Its in the footnotes. Manufacturing processes are never black and white. Not only do the APUs represent a lower cost product, but higher volume of sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Additionally, lets say that you are correct and both products cost the exact same in variable costs. You sell 10,000 of your low end, and 1000 of your high end. The low end product sells for 100, and the high volume for 250. Your revenues are 1,000,000 and 250,000 respectively. So, we're back to square one. Even if you were correct and cost is the same for both (which it is not), you still are not making that much on your high end chips.Quote:
Excerpt from SEC Filing:
Computing Solutions operating income was $142 million in the second quarter of 2011 compared to $128 million in the second quarter of 2010. The
improvement in operating results was primarily due to a $16 million decrease in cost of sales and a $10 million decrease in research and development
expenses partially offset by a $9 million increase in marketing, general and administrative expenses. Cost of sales decreased primarily due to increased
volume of lower cost APU platforms. Research and development expenses decreased and marketing, general and administrative expenses increased for the reasons set forth under "Expenses" below.
Computing Solutions operating income was $142 million in the second quarter of 2011 compared to $100 million in the first quarter of 2011. The
improvement in operating results was primarily due to a $17 million decrease in research and development expenses and a $14 million decrease in marketing, general and administrative expenses. Research and development expenses and marketing, general and administrative expenses decreased for the reasons described under "Expenses" below.
Computing Solutions operating income was $242 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to $274 million in the first six months of 2010. The
decline in operating results was primarily due to a $46 million increase in marketing, general and administrative expenses and a $36 million increase in
research and development expenses, partially offset by a $13 million decrease in cost of sales. Marketing, general and administrative expenses and research and development expenses increased for the reasons set forth under "Expenses," below. Cost of sales decreased primarily due to increased volume of lower cost APU platforms.
In general, the less expensive the product, the higher the volume of sales. In order for the high volume products in my example to bring in the same revenues, they would have to sell for ten times as much given a 90/10 mix. Or For the same price it would have to be 60/40 for mainstream/high end respectively.
AMD should have excellent cost control for their manufacturing considering their current contract supposedly leaves GF to eat all the non functional dies. Yields could be 1% but other than being supply limited GF would be eating those costs.
I'm sure the manufacturing costs will eventually be averaged into AMD's cost (unless GF doesn't care about profit) but right now AMD should be in heaven in regards to manufacturing costs.
It's no different than the deal with TSMC, and I wager other companies have similar deals with fabs, so not really a big advantage for AMD.
While I don't disagree completely with that I would wager AMD & GF's unique situation paves the way for AMD to get a much sweeter deal than anybody else in the industry would get from an independent foundry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
After all one would have a hard time surviving without the other as things stand today. However with GF's owners having deeper pockets to pull from I wager they are getting the shorter end of the stick for the time being to help keep AMD in the black.
TSMC and other independent foundries have a diverse customer base as well as technology offerings as far as different processes are concerned. They are in a much better position to remain viable if they where to lose some fab work from a customer that went out of business. Their number one priority would first and foremost be profitability and survival of their foundry keeping their pricing competitive.
Are you sure? Read your comment again and then read Stewie007's comment because he elaborates on what I was talking and explains it better than me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I read several articles stating that we will see a price drop when 2700k was released. The only thing we do not know is when. I still see no point in going with bulldozer unless you have several builds; the price difference between the two might be a small upgrade in GPU or more storage.
The driving force of the low-cost APUs are the E-xxx and C-xx series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie007
They have lower ASPs (~$33), but with much higher margin (expected to be 50%+).
My point is, the profits are in the mainstream, via the Llano and future Trinity. BD high end FX chips are not going to be the money makers.
High Volume is always the money maker. The point I was trying to make is that costs are not the same, but given that they were, it would still take quite a bit of FX chips to catch up with the APU revenues.
Besides, its in the bloody footnotes. There is no arguing with that. ;)
so , I hear BD will need a driver to shine?
lol :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by bl4ckdr4g00n
:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by bl4ckdr4g00n
What bulldozer doesn't need a driver to really move
Neah,it needs tanks of gasoline :D
Sarcasm is a b**** :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Greg83
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg83
http://www.girlsquadx.com/life/burni...terpillar.jpeg