Slashdot Mirror
AMD Cancels 28nm APUs, Starts From Scratch At TSMC
MrSeb writes "According to multiple independent sources, AMD has canned its 28nm Brazos-based Krishna and Wichita designs that were meant to replace Ontario and Zacate in the second half of 2012. The company will likely announce a new set of 28nm APUs at its Financial Analyst Day in February — and the new chips will be manufactured by TSMC, rather than its long-time partner GlobalFoundries. The implications and financial repercussions could be enormous. Moving 28nm APUs from GloFo to TSMC means scrapping the existing designs and laying out new parts using gate-last rather than gate-first manufacturing. AMD may try to mitigate the damage by doing a straightforward 28nm die shrink of existing Ontario/Zacate products, but that's unlikely to fend off increasing competition from Intel and ARM in the mobile space."
AMD has no competition in APU arena. It is dominating it.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21730/8
its actually possible to game with acceptable detail and fps with entry-mid level laptops without paying a fortune now.
Read radical news here
The description is somewhat misleading in that Global Foundries is not a "long-time partner," but what were AMD's own internal wafer fabs until Global Foundries was spun out as a separate company in 2009.
I salute you, mythical IT-worker who manages to get an overclocked computer work-approved.
Who said it was approved? In a previous job a friend inherited a computer from someone who'd left and never understood why it would crash every few days and hit bugs that no-one else seemed to see until he looked in the BIOS and discovered the previous user had overclocked it.
Calling Global Foundries AMD's "long-time partner" really dates "MrSeb", he must have started reporting tech news in the last three years. Global Foundries isn't just a "partner" to AMD, it's part-owned by AMD, and was spun out of AMD's manufacturing and merged with Chartered Semiconductor.
With multi-core CPUs, just because you can't reach 100% usage doesn't mean your not CPU limited.
Nobody pays much attention to single-core performance anymore, and I have no idea why. There are tons of programs that people use on a regular basis that are single-core limited.
There's a very simple reason: physical limitations. The current processor technology is more or less maxed out for single-thread performance. There's probably some gains available by completely changing the instruction set or completely giving up on multi-thread performance, but nothing that Intel can put into a chip they can sell. They can't up clock speed anymore due to the speed of light (except a little bit when doing a die shrink). The obsession with multi-core isn't because Intel and AMD think everyone wants to run more threads; software is moving towards using more threads because Intel and AMD simply can't improve single-thread performance but they, at least for a little while longer, can keep adding more cores.
Intel i5 661: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115217&Tpk=i5%20661
According to these benchmarks, we have:
And this doesn't account for the money spent on a motherboard, which adds a hefty price to any intel offering.
So, looks like you botched your careful number check.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.