Quote Originally Posted by savantu View Post
Nice to know you read Intel's invest boards. Btw, your reply also speaks volumes about your professionalism since you attack the speaker and not his arguments.

You claim you have experience in IC design. Do you agree or disagree with Paul's assesement, irrespective of where his preferences lie ? You can also decline if you believe your cannot make this judgement based on your experience. Let's keep the signal up and noise down. Stick to the facts.




Let's get the fact straight. AMD 32nm products are delayed because GF has problems with the 32nm process. ( hardly unexpected given their SOI+gate 1st aproach )
Informal posts a comment about slide 17 from the GF presentation regarding Freq distribution of the parts and considers it evidence of a good process since most parts hit N+2 frequency. ( N being the expected median ).
At first I believed that too, as amateur I thought : " What's the fuss with GF 32nm since it yields above target bins ? " Then I saw a post by Paul who has 30 years experience in IC, both analog and digital, holds several patents for memories,etc and he explained clearly things aren't right.
Distribution should follow a gaussian pattern with a bell centered around the median.
And then you and Hans come and snide about everything but the actual argument. Target the argument and not the messenger rings a bell ?


All is not well with Intels 32nm process either and Intel has much more experience with 32nm than GF. Now the problem with Intel's 32nm gives rise to lower production and another thermal related problem "Cant go much further into either"

Anyways Intel is working its arse off to fix the problems and quite soon enough these will be rectified, i know that the thermal problem will be fixed before sandy bridge goes into full out production.

Well the fact of the matter is both GF and Intel has problems with 32nm, maybe GF has SOI+gate 1st approach to thank but that does not dim the fact that "32nm is harder to adopt than 45nm"