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."
With all the issues at gloflo, this might be a good thing. But it looks like too little too late.
So far I have been totally unable to tax my current CPU past 40% utilization. I think we can take a break and let software catch up and older systems fall off the support map before the next generation of CPUs hit.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's TSMC, not TMSC.
Thank you.
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.
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
After reading the summary (a few times), I came to the conclusion that I know nothing about this topic. Thanks for the heads up so I that was not burdened with reading an article that only a select few might understand or care.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
so far, all bobcat-based chips have been made at TSMC, haven't they? so is this really news?
I hope you like $500 celerons...
If this was 1995, I'd believe it. In 2011, Intel competes with itself. If they drive up CPU prices, they won't be able to make more and more profits because people do *NOT* need to upgrade. The vast majority of the population is doing fine on a dual core 4+ year old CPU running a browser and IM program and watching videos. Since people do not need to upgrade, but Intel has to sell more and more CPUs, their profits would collapse and then the stock and then ... hilarity ensues.
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.
Bulldozer is a fail architecture. Lower performance and higher power draw than their own chips that are lower price like the phenom 2 six cores.
How bad is it when what used to be your in-house fab merits a last-minute change to a competitor's relatively different process?
You really should install an antivirus program.
I hope you like $500 celerons...
If this was 1995, I'd believe it. In 2011, Intel competes with itself. If they drive up CPU prices, they won't be able to make more and more profits because people do *NOT* need to upgrade. The vast majority of the population is doing fine on a dual core 4+ year old CPU running a browser and IM program and watching videos. Since people do not need to upgrade, but Intel has to sell more and more CPUs, their profits would collapse and then the stock and then ... hilarity ensues.
Actually, the vast majority of people world wide don't even have access to a computer. For those who do, the vast majority probably don't even need a dual core cpu, for most of what is done. Engineers, graphic designers and gamers would be the exception to that statement.
Wow.. um. I'm currently running a 4yo handmedown computer with a Pentium D. I have a browser running, xchat, gedit, and I'm listening to pandora. And the only thing I would need a new CPU for is so I can a: watch 720p html5 video, or b: compile GCC in a fraction of the time. However, if I guessed, the vast majority of the population only uses their computer for a web browser containing facebook and youtube. I know people who /only/ use their computer for facebook (and that's when they're not using their phone for it).
Your assumption that you can simply ignore AMD's influence in the CPU market and still end up with a relevant model to explain and predict its outcome is both naive and disingenuous. AMD does have products which outperform equivalent Intel products, even when not accounting with Intel shenanigans such as relying on funny compiler tricks, and AMD happens to price them quite attractively. If you haven't considered any AMD offering on any budget for any serious desktop and instead opted to rely only on Intel products then you are both clueless and economically-challenged.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Actually, the vast majority of people world wide don't even have access to a computer. For those who do, the vast majority probably don't even need a dual core cpu, for most of what is done.
The vast majority probably don't need more than dial-up connectivity, though it sure is much more pleasant when you have broadband.
Dual core is the same way. It's much more pleasant to work on a dual core machine than a single core, because most people multitask (listen to music, watch video, browse sites with many tabs, plus OS and antivirus and dropbox sync and blah blah in the background.
Your point has more validity above dual core. Certainly engineers, graphic designers, and gamers have a better chance of needing 4/6/8/12 cores than the typical "I surf, read email, and watch YouTube" user.
Advice: on VPS providers
All true; but, they're down to 9% ownership and according to the articles no longer have rights to appoint someone to the GloFlo board. Looks like the relationship is becoming increasingly sour.
How about a Phenom that can be used in a multiple socket motherboard? It might destroy their Opteron marketshare, but they would own the desktop + server market.
5 x ~$200 Phenom II X6s...30 cores for $1000.
I am John Hurt.
AMD does have products which outperform equivalent Intel products,
Such as?
In 2011, Intel competes with itself.
That's part of the problem. One of the speculated reasons the Atom processor is so far behind, is that Intel was afraid it would cannibalize more profitable segments of its mobile CPU market. As a result, they launched it with a bunch of contractual restrictions on it (customers had to agree not to use it in any notebook larger than 10"-form factor), while using pricing models that discouraged 3rd party graphics (Atoms bundled with Intel's chipset were sometimes actually cheaper than solo Atoms, making nVidia ION combos uneconomical).
Since AMD had no strong CPUs in the netbook segment, everyone had to simply accept these restrictions at first, until AMD introduced their Ontaria and Zacate series.
Whether you buy AMD products or not, you can't ignore the fact that AMD is an important counter-balance to Intel. Without AMD, Intel would have a monopoly in CPUs which would bring prices up and innovation down until other competitors, like ARM, would fill in the gap, which could take some time.
Oh, they can go slower. The world market is still expanding both in size and average price they can afford, companies will still buy them for their X years of support, laptops break down and so on. Intel wouldn't drive prices up as such, they'd bring costs down. Sell 22nm processors at same prices as 32nm processors, does that sound massively profitable to you? It does to me. In the end they'll sell you something that costs like an Atom for the price of a 2600K. Or maybe just slow down their tick-tocks, let each generation soak up twice the profits. I doubt Intel would let AMD die though, that'd bring too much anti-trust scrutiny on their total domination of the world's computers. At death's door would be just fine though.
In any case, I find this news unlikely. TSMC has crap record for delivering on time with decent yields, their 32nm process was so bad it got scrapped and the 28nm process is still struggling from what I gather. The only reason they've not been slain in the market for that is that both AMD and nVidia depend on them now so the graphics market just took a timeout. If Intel had a real graphics division they'd be eating them for lunch by now. GlobalFoundries is what used to be AMD proper, if they aren't able to do 28nm then they've got a total of zero reliable production facilities if you ask me. And Intel's already doing volume production on 22nm....
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Or get an i5-2500k which is faster than a lot of the x6s for only.like 20 bucks more.
And 30w less tdp.
If you are really interested to know that then you should simply pick up any random benchmark from the web and compare prices. For example, in some benchmarks the AMD FX-8150 processor, which goes for about 220 euros, outperforms Intel Core i7-2860QM systems, which sells for around 500 euros. And in the nearest mom&pop store, an AMD Phenom II X6 1100T goes for 178 euros while the Intel Core i7 870 goes for 240 euros.
But seriously, pop up any random benchmark between recent intel and AMD processors and compare their performance and their price. You will notice that AMD either come out ahead or are head-to-head.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
X86 cpu manufacturer can and should survive. Maybe Intel or Microsoft or Apple will buy them out to put them out of their misery. The quicker customers can box themselves in the better. Choice is fleeting and obviously, chooses the current "best" processor is always in your "best" interest with no thought of the long term. But maybe Arm really is meant to eventually replace the X86 architecture.
The thought of hanging myself at my student loan organization doesn't bug me as much when I think it might make a differ
Intel has the Atom line (current generation is garbage) and the i3-23X7M ($100-$200 premium) that competes on the low end with AMD.
Intel Atom's next generation has no 64bit drivers or DirectX 10 for there PowerVR chipset:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Cedar-Trail-Atom-Won-t-Receive-64-bit-Graphics-or-DirectX-10-1-Driver-232915.shtml
__________________
Fusion "2.0" was already in the works:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20111121213529_AMD_Readies_Brazos_2_0_as_Krishna_Wichita_Get_Delayed.html
IIRC, these were scrapped because OEM's weren't going to design products around a 6-month lifecyle--hence they are skipping a generation.
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.
So a disingenuous comparison! Why use the 2860qm to compare to the 815/ when when you could compare to the cheaper i7-2600 which is only $30 more and has 30w less tdp while still outperforming the bulldozer. Or why not compare that 1100t to the i5-2500 which is way more performant, again 30w lower tdp and only $35 more. Oh right, because that doesn't create as insane a price gap.
Correction the i5-2500 is only $20 more. The i5-2500k which is even faster is the one that's $35 more than the 1100t.
Oh my god, there's less than 70 shopping days left!
It's tradition in my house that on Financial Analyst Day, or FAD as we call it, we make spiced wine and spike it with DMT, then sit around singing appropriate songs, such as "Money" by Pink Floyd, "Money (That's What I Want)" by the Beatles and "Gimme da Loot" by Biggie Smalls.
Then, sitting in a circle, we pass around a revolver with only one shell loaded and spinning the cylinder, we point at the person to the left and pull the trigger.
It's by far my favorite holiday.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I got an AMD Phenom II X4 840 for $59.99 a few days ago (at Microcenter); I'm sure it's more than half as fast as a 965, so it's an even better value. I got a new motherboard (AMD 760G chipset) with it too; it was also $59.99. Not bad, I think -- would I have been able to find an Intel solution for that price/performance?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yeah, and TSMC is the foundry that ATI has used for years (and still does). The plan with the APUs has always been to move ATI's GPU to AMD's^W Global Foundry's process. They have given up on that and decided to move AMD's CPU to the TSMC process instead. It's a pretty big turn of events.
APU unlikely to fend off increasing competition from Intel? Most Intel Atom based netbooks/tablets/whatever that I know have the GMA 3150. Which runs at 200 Mhz max. and has 2 shader units. The C-50 has 80 unified shaders running at 280 Mhz (yes, again low but I'm guessing 80 things working in parallel make up for it. please correct me if I'm wrong), supporting DX11,OpenGL 4.1 and UVD 3. Way better than Intel graphics cards. True, the CPU isn't very fast, but for things like video playback and 2D,3D games and other applications? It beats Intel hands down. I love Intel for their linux support but they just don't make graphics hardware for gaming.
AMD tried this once before with their AMD QuadFX 4x4 concept. It didn't go anywhere.
The problem is that most games are insufficiently multi-threaded to take advantage of a dual processor architecture. A hard core group of gamers exists that would purchase dual processor and quad processor Opteron and Xeon motherboards if it resulted in increased game performance. Unfortunately, best game performance is often obtained from single processor desktop chips.
Bottom line: Games often struggle at keeping more than 2 to 3 cores busy. As a result, better performance for the dollar is obtained by purchasing better video cards.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. The Pentium Pro failed miserably as a CPU offering, yet ended up as the basis for the Pentium 2 and 3, and then the Pentium M, and going forward. Just because Bulldozer in its first release has done poorly may be due to some design issues that we just don't know about, and in the next rev, may be fixed.
A single part that has the cpu and the memory on a single pcb. Have 2, 4, 6 and 8gb models. Put the memory right next to the chip and eliminate complexity. You could still add ram to the mobo, but it would act as cache for other things like disk and video. You could even have multi-socket mobos, but the cpus would not share memory except through the secondary memory.
No, this is new. AMD has got some sizzle to announce in February. That wasn't in last week's stuff. Is there a steak behind the sizzle? We'll see.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I have a neat little handheld Sony Vaio which has a 1.33Ghz Core Solo and a Intel GMA945 graphics adapter oh... and 1Gb RAM. It's an awesome machine but Windows XP was too heavy for it. Windows Vista was far to heavy for it. Windows 7 runs pretty nice on it. Windows 8 beta is much nicer, very usable. Android is ok on it... but I still don't know what the point of Android is. Meego wasn't too bad on it. Mac OS X Lion is a laughing joke on it.
All things considered, the operating systems are seriously improving on performance now.... The more they accelerate the desktop with the GPU and the more they work on power savings, the better the operating systems get. I think it pretty much started as functionality... then the trend went in to stability and security and now is moving in the direction of performance. With the world trying to fit more and more computer into their pockets instead of backpacks, the operating systems are being tuned for that.
Now apps on the other hand are another issue. One day, someone will even write an e-mail client that doesn't make my Core i7 2600K with 16 gigs of RAM and 500MB/s r/w SSD cry whenever I search my mail.
Agreed. However, my point was that with all the problems they are running into with Bulldozer, they might be able to bridge the problem by modifying (hopefully slightly) their Phenom II design, and could spend a year or two punishing Intel. And I do mean punishing them.
And while games may not be designed to take advantage of those extra cores, I can think of a host of applications between the workstation - server range that could.
Virtual Machines, for starters. Video encoding for another. Databases love cores, last I checked. Web servers. Even most modern day operating systems like more cores. And that's not even tapping into the more interesting stuff out there.
If they (AMD) make more cores readily available, programmers will begin writing programs that take advantage of more cores. The optimizations of today, as you have pointed out, are barely using 2-3 cores, because that's what the vast majority of the market is likely to have.
Plus, there's geek cred. Who isn't going to boast about having 3 times the amount of cores of their neighbor, for less than a third the cost?
I am John Hurt.
'Disingenuous' ... you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. Are you seriously comparing a *LAPTOP* processor to a *DESKTOP* processor? And I am disingenuous? You should compare it to the i5-2500K, which is cheaper and way better performing for most tasks and runs significantly cooler.
Or you could use the cheaper and still better performing i3 2130 which.is only 149.99. Once again you choose more expensive alternatives rather than the cheaper ones.
6 y.o. laptop, Celeron M 1.4GHz, 2x256MB DDR1 RAM, 40GB 5.4krpm PATA-133. Arch linux. My overloaded (50+ add-ons) FF profile runs smoothly, when alone. FF and VLC don't like each other - they both start to stutter. Guess I didn't get the IO priorities right. I'm running linux-pf patchset. Any ideas?
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.