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."
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?"
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.