Quote Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
That's untrue. We're talking about economies of scale when it comes to the 32nm manufacturing process. There wasn't a large client to pick it up so it was dropped in favor of concentrating on 28nm.

As I have said numerous times already: AMD realized that 32nm wouldn't bring them any benefits in terms of power savings or cost offsets for their mid and lower end cards so decided to port them over to 40nm instead. That left Ibiza dangling at the top end but without large volumes running through their foundries on the 32nm process, TSMC decided to drop the process altogether. This is also why we didn't see Cayman until December of this year.

I'm not saying TSMC wouldn't have had issues with manufacturing. Rather, they weren't given the chance to actually run into any of the pitfalls since designs were stopped before volume production commenced.

I don't need links or anything else to back this up since I was told it first-hand.

Basically what you're arguing is which came first: the chicken or the egg. I mean naturally TSMC was behind on the 32nm process but that didn't mean they COULDN'T produce a lineup of products based off of it.
Quote Originally Posted by Heinz68 View Post
The bottom line is, if there was no issue with the 32nm process, Cayman would be a little beast, actually the same applies to Bart.
What's so untrue about it? You did not read my reply completely or decided to reply selectively. You don't believe the HD 6000 series would end up faster on 32nm process if TSMC could delivered it. I mean deliver it at reasonable price, talking mainly about the 6800 series.

You still believe there were no issue with the 32nm process? As you origionaly said:
"Contrary to popular belief, TSMC didn't have issues with 32nm."

I do not know about your "first-hand" info but could not find any article to confirm the above "no issue".

Anyway my first reply was to this post of yours, which sounded to me as it was AMD fault why TSMC cancelled the 32nm process.
Or at least it was a little miss-leading.

Sorry to say so but I believe the AnandTech article described the situation much better. Off course I am comparing it the the first post of yours I replied to.

I do not have any desire to talk about "the chicken or the egg" but since you put it this way, I believe the TSMC problem with the 32nm came first.

One more time I Googled "TSMC 32nm cancel" looks like the "no issue" is top secret.

This is my last post about the subject.