Bulldozer Die Shot!

[R101]

I think its ok, some people prefer Intel, some AMD.

If all people were neutral, than they wouldn't bother arguing into detail, and from those details many of us can learn something.

It's completely another thing if someone gets carried away too much.

[savantu]

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"

What is the problem ? I keep hearing about this on this site, yet nowhere else. Is it a case of " if you repeat something enough times it will become truth " ?
Intel's ramp up and process quality has been astounding since 90nm. Even there, the problem was Prescott and not the process which was excellent. Every assement, either by Intel through presentations at conferences or done by independent reviewers showed no issues.

Yields is always bad in the beginning of each processes, no news there. How can you possibly try to use this fact against AMD and GloFo?
Was Intel in equally deep when their 32nm yields was bad? Is every company doomed every time they change a process?

EDIT: I don't think anyone would expect GloFos 32nm to be a mature process yet. That the yields isn't there they want them is what we expect at this point.

Yields follow a preset curve on any process introduction and ramp up. The problem is, the 32nm SOI HKMG process isn't following the preset curve and deadlines. That's why 32nm products were pushed 6 months later.
So you're arguing a false dillema. The issue isn't that yeilds are bad at introduction ( which is normal ), but the processes schedules aren't met which inserts delays into products build on that process.

Nah, you got it wrong Savantu. The problem is not that you comment quite critically over some things going on at AMD/GF.

The problem is that we don't see you doing the same on Intel matters/threads. If you would be impartial and as hard on Intel as you are on AMD than nobody would care what your attitude is.

Well, there are few things I can be critical with Intel on CPUs since their execution from the Cedar Mill/Presler generation has been excellent.
What else to complain ? The price ? Well, getting the best on time has a price.

[Hans de Vries]

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 ?

Investor board business is all about continuous harassment and spamming
FUD. If you are serious about the signal/noise ratio then you shouldn't post
from investor boards on an enthusiast site. There's no better way to ruin
people's hobby.

I won't be lured into discussing FUD. In case you're really taking this stuff
serious: This whole graph doesn't tell you anything: It doesn't give you
any frequency (10% faster or 0.01% faster?) It doesn't give you a sample
count (5000 samples and a smooth curve? or 50 samples an an irregular
curve?) It certainly doesn't tell you that the process is "out of control",
"the parts run very hot" Total bull.....

(ok now I see where the bananas come from)



Regards, Hans

[Mechanical Man]

Yeah, nowhere in those slides there were anything about the curve not being gaussian. So it could very well be that the curve is expected at N but is at N+2.

[superrugal]

Fmax may be "max frequency", that diagram means Fmax higher than expected. But we don't know whether there is a STRONG relationship between yield & Fmax.

[sergiojr]

That's why 32nm products were pushed 6 months later.

Where does 6 month come from? Why are you saying "32 nm products" when it affects only Llano? Are you trying to make news just by repeating it many times? Dirk Meyer said that they postponed launch of Llano for "a couple of month" not half a year or anything you are implying. It is the only piece of "official" information.

[tifosi]

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 ?

Well my friend, anyone from an opposition is hardly someone you would base your facts on. He is no god, plus works for Intel and thus has enough of a reason/ motive to spread FUD on a competitor and their work. Given that he doesn't work for AMD or GloFo or any associated companies, i wouldn't think he has much idea about the state of the process and its development at GloFo. One can make an educated guess, but that is what it remains and going forward should be treated as such.

[superrugal]

Where does 6 month come from? Why are you saying "32 nm products" when it affects only Llano? Are you trying to make news just by repeating it many times? Dirk Meyer said that they postponed launch of Llano for "a couple of month" not half a year or anything you are implying. It is the only piece of "official" information.

There's also some media report that 32nm Llano is just postponed 2 months, but I never saw them quote it.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...ch_Issues.html

Due to issues with 32nm silicon-on-insulator process technology, Advanced Micro Devices had to delay the launch of the highly-anticipated code-named Llano processor that combines high-performance x86 central processing unit with graphics processing unit on the same die. The company said that the postponement may be two months long.

[savantu]

Well my friend, anyone from an opposition is hardly someone you would base your facts on. He is no god, plus works for Intel and thus has enough of a reason/ motive to spread FUD on a competitor and their work. Given that he doesn't work for AMD or GloFo or any associated companies, i wouldn't think he has much idea about the state of the process and its development at GloFo. One can make an educated guess, but that is what it remains and going forward should be treated as such.

He doesn't work for Intel and btw, the laws of physics apply to any company. His "educated guess" is much more educated than yours or mine since it is backed by over a quarter of a century experience in semis.

Where does 6 month come from? Why are you saying "32 nm products" when it affects only Llano? Are you trying to make news just by repeating it many times? Dirk Meyer said that they postponed launch of Llano for "a couple of month" not half a year or anything you are implying. It is the only piece of "official" information.

What do you understand by "a couple of months " ?
1? 2? 3 months is a Q, he would have said so.

Llano was supposed to ship before Ontario.
Let's see :
-Ontario was planned for Q1 2011
-Llano was Q4 2010
Now :
-Ontario is Q4 2010
-Llano is "shipping for revenue" in H1 2011. Shipping for revenue != launch.

It doesn't take a genius then to figure out that BD is also affected by the delay, it's closely linked to the process and not in a vacuum.

[duploxxx]

Well, there are few things I can be critical with Intel on CPUs since their execution from the Cedar Mill/Presler generation has been excellent.
What else to complain ? The price ? Well, getting the best on time has a price.

lets see tigertown-dunnington-......beckton anyone?

T and D both slow, hot and only selling because of the brandname and Beck well it is released a year after date and not mind braking either looking at price/performance/power.

What do you understand by "a couple of months " ?
1? 2? 3 months is a Q, he would have said so.

Llano was supposed to ship before Ontario.
Let's see :
-Ontario was planned for Q1 2011
-Llano was Q4 2010
Now :
-Ontario is Q4 2010
-Llano is "shipping for revenue" in H1 2011. Shipping for revenue != launch.

It doesn't take a genius then to figure out that BD is also affected by the delay, it's closely linked to the process and not in a vacuum.

you have no idea and you will never know untill there is leaked accurate information (almost never), general public information (what you will read on the internet), FUD where all your comments are based on and what you spread since you lack the main source.

look at xbitlabs info: . It is not clear whether AMD has problems wedding the Llano design to the 32nm SOI fabrication process, there are issues with the process itself or the design of the Llano has certain flaws. In any case, the start of commercial shipments slipped by two months, according to AMD. They don't know either and 2 months is nothing.

[sergiojr]

What do you understand by "a couple of months " ?
1? 2? 3 months is a Q, he would have said so.

Between 1,5 and 3 month.

It doesn't take a genius then to figure out that BD is also affected by the delay, it's closely linked to the process and not in a vacuum.

BD was always supposed to launch after Llano on matured process.
Low yields could be a stop-factor for production of Llano as it is low-margin product. I don't see low yields affecting launch of BD at all, since it is a high-margin server chip.

[sergiojr]

There's also some media report that 32nm Llano is just postponed 2 months, but I never saw them quote it.

Original source of that info is "AMD Q2 2010 Earnings Conference Call". You can read it here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2147...all?part=qanda

So exact quotes of Dirk Meyer are

1. Llano production shipments are still expected to occur in the first half of next year.
2. So the effective change if you will doing our internal plans on Llano amounts to a couple of months.

Anything past that is pure speculation.

[JF-AMD]

At the same time that Dirk said Llano would slip by "a couple of months" he also said Bulldozer was still on track.

People are jumping to conclusions. And if you are going to do Llano math vs. Ontario, don't forget that Ontario was pulled in.

[RaV[666]]

JF-AMD, are there any indications when we can expect launch of bulldozer ready chipset for am3r2 ? I can wait for a cpu,i have a decent six core, however new ddr3 mobo is in order for many still on am2.

[madcho]

JF-AMD, are there any indications when we can expect launch of bulldozer ready chipset for am3r2 ? I can wait for a cpu,i have a decent six core, however new ddr3 mobo is in order for many still on am2.

he's the server guy and i think this information is under NDA for moment.

[Chumbucket843]

Yields follow a preset curve on any process introduction and ramp up. The problem is, the 32nm SOI HKMG process isn't following the preset curve and deadlines. That's why 32nm products were pushed 6 months later.
So you're arguing a false dillema. The issue isn't that yeilds are bad at introduction ( which is normal ), but the processes schedules aren't met which inserts delays into products build on that process.

your post is so misinformative.

there is no preset function for yields v time or correctly defect density v time although generally they are logarithmic. ramp times accelerate with with moore's law. in fact, even intel fell behind in this metric because there 32nm ramped as fast as their 45nm process. that's not all that great for a process that's only 70% denser.

[superrugal]

I have wanna to ask you all about the concept of "yield" since long time ago.
It means what? The defect rate? No, at least not only.
The yield problem is also include, the fab's efficiency, supplement, and so on. When talking about the YIELD, it maybe a very complex technical question. Unfortunately Dirk & other media didn't talk anything about that. All we can do is just wait.

[informal]

Quoting Paul Demone from investor board,yikes :S. All I see there is he and terrace having back-patting match and dissecting GloFo's slides to find an inkling of "disaster",so that they can assure the rest how the process is screwed and the parts must be running hot(are you serious??).All this from a vague chart describing fmax without any usable information that could Paul in turn use to bad mouth it.But then again,Paul doesn't need a good reason does he?

PS Paul Demone post : The more I post,the lower the yields are!

[MrMojoZ]

Well, there are few things I can be critical with Intel on CPUs since their execution from the Cedar Mill/Presler generation has been excellent.
What else to complain ? The price ? Well, getting the best on time has a price.

You make things up, spin and pull out 6 year old quotes to attack AMD, but Intel is so awesome they can't possibly be doing anything wrong. You are a liar and offer nothing but negativity to these threads.

[savantu]

your post is so misinformative.

there is no preset function for yields v time or correctly defect density v time although generally they are logarithmic. ramp times accelerate with with moore's law in fact, even intel fell behind in this metric because there 32nm ramped as fast as their 45nm process. that's not all that great for a process that's only 70% denser.

The fact that GF is behind schedule with the process ramp by their very own admission is misinformation from my side ?
Interesting.

Secondly, there is no direct relation for yields and defects wrts to time. I don't know how you came up with that BS. The issue however are the deadlines set in the planning phase and the 32nm process failed to reach its intermediate deadlines.As for Intel's process it is obvious they did not target density. A conscious design choice doesn't make it great or not.

Quoting Paul Demone from investor board,yikes :S. All I see there is he and terrace having back-patting match and dissecting GloFo's slides to find an inkling of "disaster",so that they can assure the rest how the process is screwed and the parts must be running hot(are you serious??).All this from a vague chart describing fmax without any usable information that could Paul in turn use to bad mouth it.But then again,Paul doesn't need a good reason does he?

PS Paul Demone post : The more I post,the lower the yields are!

You get the award for the least signal in your post and the most noise. GF by themselves admit there are issues and you spin it that it's Paul searching for a "inkling of a disaster". Paul interpreted the slide GF posted. You may like it or not, but at least try to come up with a shred of counter-evidence instead of turning it personal. But that's far more easier isn't it ?
I hope you'll wake up from your dellusion when in the next 3 months you'll see the 32nm products being officially delayed.

You make things up, spin and pull out 6 year old quotes to attack AMD, but Intel is so awesome they can't possibly be doing anything wrong. You are a liar and offer nothing but negativity to these threads.

Having a bad day ? Try for once to challenge what I say instead of poking in the air and throwing false accusations.

[cegras]

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 ?

Professionalism? That guy called AMD supporters mouth breathers. What did Hans do, use an eye rolling smiley?

[generics_user]

savantu trolling the forum posting his usual crap without ANY reliable sources is getting extremely annoying, there should be a rule against posting COMPLETE FUD without any remotely RELIABLE sources at all (hell even fudzilla is more reliable than savantu's sources )...


all normal sources indicated that the bulldozer is on track; llano got delayed by a month (which is an extremely long time ) and that GF 32nm is on track (delay of a single CPU doesn't necessarily mean that the process is broken...)

[-Boris-]

All companies make bad decisions, and most of them good decisions. Both Intel and AMD have made heaps of good and bad decisions. So I have a hard time taking anyone seriously if he fails to point out any bad decisions one company makes, but see everything another successful company do as disastrous.

As long as Savantu is able to read disaster between the lines in every document referring to AMD I can't take him seriously. And I can definitely not see him as professional about the matter. Just as I can't do that with anyone doing the same with Intel or any other company.

It's OK to point out weak points and express some criticism, as long as it isn't all you do with one company but never do it with their competitors. And it's OK to try to read between lines and speculate, as long as you only read imminent doom and believe in your speculations as truth.


And I can agree with Savantu that some people fail to address his arguments sometimes. But that might be several reasons for that, one being that they just don't stand replying to arguments founded at pure imagination, they don't want to be trolled. Another reason might be that they just don't take him seriously anymore.

[Calmatory]

... lots of now deleted stuff ...

Can't be so. If it was sincere "I wanna know how it works", you wouldn't have got yourself banned twice from the news section, plus this

Fanboy is a fanboy, turd is a turd. Sometimes they are exact equal.

It's no surprise that there are the handful(5, I won't give names since all of us know them anyway, 3 of them are banned from here now) of people who always wreak the same havoc the second they enter to AMD threads.

Now i'm off.

[savantu]

Can't be so. If it was sincere "I wanna know how it works", you wouldn't have got yourself banned twice from the news section, plus this

Fanboy is a fanboy, turd is a turd. Sometimes they are exact equal.

It's no surprise that there are the handful(5, I won't give names since all of us know them anyway) of people who always wreak the same havoc the second they enter to AMD threads.

Could it be because there is no chance to actually discuss something here ? Whatever it is posted against the general perception is received with personal attacks only ? If we all agree on something ( like some AMDroids want ) the News section should be closed and some type of newsfeed put in place.

You mention 5 Intel fanboys, I can also count you at least 5 AMD ones which appear in every thread and act as the home guard. The moment you say something which goes against the "the green heaven", you're immediately pounded. There aren't AMD threads as there aren't Intel threads. That's nothing more than an imaginary wall to keep away any dissident thought. Well, sometimes I wish the people who jump with this BS should be beamed into "1984" to have a taste of their own medicine regarding "thought crime".

Now i'm off.

Out and away also.