C'mon, rich knows nada. And I doubt the process is solely to blame. BD is massive and it's high speed nature could mean it's just like Prescott reloaded : no matter how good the process is/was, it can't make BD/Prescott shine. Intel's 90nm was outstanding by any metric and Dothan fully showed that. However that couldn't save Prescott's bacon. I have the impression something similar is going on here : the process is reasonably ok, yields are poorer than planned due the intrisic things like gate first, BUT, BD and Llano aren't first class engineering jobs.
And with the relation getting really sour, GF probably doesn't give a damn about AMD's issues with 32nm and simply wait for the pay-only-good-die deal to end. GF is taking huge losses and part of the blame is the design which they have no influence upon.
And their other customers care more about 28nm bulk than 32nm SOI HKMG. Last yield figures put 28nm at 1-2 good dies per wafer. They must be dancing in the isles at GF.
Edit : just found something to reinforce my point that the process is acceptable :
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...benefits-TSMC-Meanwhile, Globalfoundries said it would not comment on its customer's foundry selection process or on their products unless they did so first. The spokesman also said problems with Llano had been specific to that product and that yields for AMD's 32/28nm Bulldozer products were on target and not affecting AMD's ability to meet customer commitments.
“We are still the only foundry producing HKMG products that can be purchased in stores now,” the Globalfoundries spokesman said, noting that the fab expected to ship “far more” HKMG volume in 2011 than all other foundries combined.




Reply With Quote
Bookmarks