For AMD Success Means Problems

An anonymous reader writes "AMD's success with its dual-core Opteron and Athlon processors has created something of a happy problem for the company. It can't make its products fast enough to meet demand. Just the same, with the Intel price war heating up and new 65-nanometer manufacturing technology being implemented in its factories, AMD has a lot of balls in the air right now." From the News.com article: "AMD's current pickle is the result of its success, which makes it a little easier to swallow for company executives. Demand is high, but the company's dual-core processors still use its 90-nanometer manufacturing technology. Intel's chips, on the other hand, are built using the smaller transistors provided by its 65-nanometer manufacturing technology. Not only is AMD using larger transistors, but its dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 processors contain two processing cores integrated onto a single piece of silicon, or a die. This design has given AMD great performance during the past few years, but resulted in processors that were almost twice the size of its single-core chips."

Comments

Does size matter?

[Riley Holmes]

As long as the processor fits inside of the PC case, I don't see why the bulkier size matters. If the performance is superior, it just doesn't make a difference.

Re:Does size matter?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

For AMD, a bigger die per chip means fewer chips per wafer.

Which is a problem, when you can't manufacture enough to meet demand.

Re:Does size matter?

[Belial6]

Actually, it's not a problem at all. It's a good thing. If AMD were already producing 45nm chips, and they were twice the size and slower than Intel's solution, THAT would be a problem. When you are doing well enough that you are outselling your ability to produce, and you still have not yet implemented your already developed technology, you are in a very good position.

Apple

[Gotung]

To all those AMD fanboi's that cried "Why not AMD"? when Apple choose Intel, this is why.
 
Disclaimer: I have nothing against AMD, I like there fact there is healthy competition in the chip world. Makes for better/faster/cheaper products for us consumers.

Re:Apple

[jo42]

I'd hazard to guess that AMD is in this situation because of Dell...

Re:Apple

[Nimey]

Except they'd also have to use different motherboards, since the sockets and chipsets aren't compatible, and sometimes the memory isn't either, as before AMD switched to socket AM2. Better for them to have a single supplier, and Intel's the one with fab capacity (and a better chip, finally).

Re:Apple

[modecx]

For clarification, what do you mean by AMD competing with Intel? Are you referring to units sold to consumers, units sold to OEMs, manufacturing capacity, or design innovations?

It's pretty obvious that in the context of "competing with Intel", he meant in the "outright processor performance" category, as in that AMD has continually used/s lower tech to compete with, if not frequently surpass the performance intel processors demonstrated--and usually at a lower price, as in the only thing normal people pay attention to: price/performance. He didn't mean megaflops/kWh, nor did he mean squirrels per cubic hectare, nor any of the stuff you quoted, which are things only boring old smelly investors would be interested in, anyway.

No Matter What...

[hurting now]

the consumer wins. I was an AMD fan boy for the past few years, but like a true Chicago fan, I am rooting for the other team because they are up. AMD may strike back again, maybe not, but this price war has really benefited many of us.

Not new

[cheezedawg]

This is not a new problem for AMD. They have always had problems keeping up with demand, and they have been capacity constrained for a few years now, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

That's the dirty little secret about the semiconductor industry- success depends just as much on manufacturing ability as the features of the chip. Intel didn't just get their 300mm wafers and 65nm process overnight- they invested 10s of billions of dollars in manufacturing R&D. The result is they have unparalleled capacity and a huge technological lead over competitors with manufacturing technology. When a large OEM comes asking for 5 million units in the next quarter with a defect rate of less than 500 per million, there are very few companies that can deliver.

Re:Not new

[Chris Burke]

Did Intel switch to 65nm and 300mm sooner than AMD? Yes. Did they switch to copper and low-K dieelectric before AMD? No. Did their 90nm production even work quite right for Intel ever? Not sure. When the 90nm P4s used more power than their 130nm brethren you have to wonder.

I think Intel's 90nm process was working just fine such as it is. In my opinion the fact that the 90nm P4 burned more power than the 130nm P4 was due to two things:

First, the Prescott core that was released in 90nm had more pipe stages than the 130nm Northwood core, in particular more pipe stages operating at the double-speed ALU clock frequency, so this means many more transitions per cycle. Other architectural changes probably added to an increase in dynamic power.

Second was the elephant in the room that all silicon manufacturers were trying to ignore, but which suddenly started stampeding around crushing things in a non-ignorable fashion at 90nm: Leakage current. All transistors conduct a small amount of current even when switched off. The problem is that this current rises as the length of the transistor decreases. Everyone saw that leakage was becoming a greater proportion of the total power consumed, but weren't doing much about it. Apparently 90nm was some kind of tipping point, and suddenly leakage was burning 25-50% of the power in the chip and you couldn't do anything about it other than power the transistors down.

Combine these two things, and Prescott was a power monster. Other chips that have less of a problem with dynamic power were better able to handle the increase in static power.

In computer architecture there's an age-old debate about the "speed demon" vs the "brainiac" which has gone on forever with no obvious answer. Roughly speaking the P4 is a speed demon, K8 and P-D are brainiacs. While I could argue about architecture and why one is better than the other, the outcome in reality has been decided. It is interesting that in the end the Speed Demon lost, and power was what struck the killing blow.

Re:I hate it when...

[drinkypoo]

"Balls in the air" was chosen because everyone has seen juggling; it supersedes "irons in the fire" because most people think that hamburgers grow on trees.

ehm... increase the price by 5%

[Colin Smith]

That's the traditional thing to do when demand outstrips your ability to supply.

Re:I hate it when...

[smittyoneeach]

Aye, and after we've hit a 1,000 times or so, we can effectively convince these vendors that a market exists, and we do care.
Understood: licensing issues.
Understand: market demand.
If ATI produces more enlightened products, your market goes by way of Soviet Russia.