AMD Officially Denies Bulldozer Delay !

[DarthShader]

Isn't that why they got rid of their old CEO? So this is a sensible move for the "new" AMD.

This is a plausible explanation. It's possible that the allocation of wafers has been discussed in January, the board wanted to give priority to Llano, given it has been delayed a bit, Dirk opposed and left.

in the high end desktop and server markets (BD target) theyre making more $ per mm2 of a 32nm wafer.

In the high end desktop market? More than from OEMs? Nope. While servers, yes, are high revenue. And server BD was scheduled for Q3 and it appears to be on track, so no problems there (hopefully).

[BeepBeep2]

This is a plausible explanation. It's possible that the allocation of wafers has been discussed in January, the board wanted to give priority to Llano, given it has been delayed a bit, Dirk opposed and left.


In the high end desktop market? More than from OEMs? Nope. While servers, yes, are high revenue. And server BD was scheduled for Q3 and it appears to be on track, so no problems there (hopefully).

Dirk seemed like a strong supporter of getting BD on the market fast...after all he was in that YouTube advertisement when he said "Times up" that AMD pulled right after he left...

Looks more than plausible to me, I mean 990FX got almost no work and looks like it was pushed with nothing new (its STILL 65NM!) and it looks like working BD silicon is out and about but no large scale production has begun.

[XRL8]

This is a plausible explanation. It's possible that the allocation of wafers has been discussed in January, the board wanted to give priority to Llano, given it has been delayed a bit, Dirk opposed and left.


In the high end desktop market? More than from OEMs? Nope. While servers, yes, are high revenue. And server BD was scheduled for Q3 and it appears to be on track, so no problems there (hopefully).

I was referring to the alleged production capacity constraints.
In this field, they are making more money on a 300$ chip than Llano, as its going to be priced a lot less.If you can allot 100% of your production capacity, you choose the ones on which you make more $ per square milimeter dont you ?
BD chips are going to cost 250-300$, while Llano is athlon x4 with onboard gpu, we dont have exact die sizes, but for Llano cpu part should be around 100mm2 and looking at the die size another 100mm2 for the gpu, so 200mm2, and BD is rumoured around 250mm2 , so Llano is not much smaller (~25%) but will be priced a lot less.Thats my line of thinking.

[jjj]

I was referring to the alleged production capacity constraints.
In this field, they are making more money on a 300$ chip than Llano, as its going to be priced a lot less.If you can allot 100% of your production capacity, you choose the ones on which you make more $ per square milimeter dont you ?
BD chips are going to cost 250-300$, while Llano is athlon x4 with onboard gpu, we dont have exact die sizes, but for Llano cpu part should be around 100mm2 and looking at the die size another 100mm2 for the gpu, so 200mm2, and BD is rumoured around 250mm2 , so Llano is not much smaller (~25%) but will be priced a lot less.Thats my line of thinking.

You might be right about BD but it could also be a bit bigger,Llano is 226-228mm2 and the notebook Llano might have better margins than desktop BD (server BD doesn't matter here since it's not delayed-apparently).Laptops are about two thirds of the PC market and where Llano aims to gain share.
That being said ,chip problems or lack of capacity it's still no good for AMD but from a marketing point of view it's better to not release both at the same time especially since Llano needs to be explained to consumers.