Page 47 of 49 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 486

Thread: 28nm APU speculation.

  1. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by pTmd View Post
    Building new mask costs money. And such kind of products requires high volume. They can shrink Ontario to 28nm, but is it still profitable after deducting the additional cost from the new 28nm mask and the cancelled 28nm mask? Given that it has to launch before mid 2012 while the Kabini APU with new core microarchitecture is still scheduled to hit the market in early 2013, I personally think it isn't worthy.

    Cancelling masks costs no money, but the development cost is pretended to be covered by later products.
    And here we are at computerx and how many ultrabooks or tablets did you see running amd hardware ? Where are the hp tablets , the dell tablets the samsung tablets ?

    NO where to be seen.

    AMD has conceded the market till sometime early 2013 which could just as easy become second half of 2013.

    AMD has basicly conceded the Windows 8 launch to Intel on the low end.


    A brazos shrink would have blown away atom and would have lead to many design wins and amd having the performance crown in many form factors. This would have generated revenue for them. The other costs associated with it were planed for witchita anyway

  2. #462
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,360
    Uh, isnt it illogical to expect a cheap very high volume 28nm TSMC chip, when NV cannot even get enough chips for 500$ cards? My guess is that AMD wanted to use GF just to fill their 28nm line, but their 28 nm was too late to make sense. By the time any fab gets enough volume for these parts, next-gen isnt too far away. Unless AMD screws up, something that wouldnt surprise me at all.
    Computex - there werent many Trinitys either. I dont think lack of useful chips is the reason.

  3. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by gljvd View Post
    And here we are at computerx and how many ultrabooks or tablets did you see running amd hardware ? Where are the hp tablets , the dell tablets the samsung tablets ?

    NO where to be seen.

    AMD has conceded the market till sometime early 2013 which could just as easy become second half of 2013.

    AMD has basicly conceded the Windows 8 launch to Intel on the low end.


    A brazos shrink would have blown away atom and would have lead to many design wins and amd having the performance crown in many form factors. This would have generated revenue for them. The other costs associated with it were planed for witchita anyway
    Just because YOU cant find them doesnt mean they dont exist yet, availability will be late june imo. They did show a Tablet prototype, and Samsung are launching an Ultrathin, HP are launching on 20 June.

    http://www.imazons.com/blog/amd-ultr...ultrathin.html

    http://www.lambda-tek.com/NP535U3C-A...H~csDE/B907818

    http://www.lambda-tek.com/NP535U4C-A...H~csFR/B907824

    http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/series-5-notebooks

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=BNI69GZSbVI

  4. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by gljvd View Post
    AMD has basicly conceded the Windows 8 launch to Intel on the low end.
    They don't want to concede, but they have no choice because they've made the decision late. Everything takes time, and everything costs money. That's why they are filling the time gap with Brazos-T with tablet-optimized I/O, and this seems to be the day-one plan, despite the cancellation of Krishna and its friend.

  5. #465
    Administrator Copper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,419
    Quote Originally Posted by MonBl71 View Post
    Oh, not that is really that important, I have been following this forum for a few years now. Thought about creating an account a lot over this period and recently finally did so. So, including this message I now have written 2 messages .
    Congratulations. Here is a cookie. <cookie>

    Specialization is for insects. - Heinlein
    Laugh dammit, life is too damned short not to laugh
    ------------------------
    I don't care if the sub-pixels are so small I need TWO magnifying glasses to see them. I want a phone that has longer battery life.

    -Q

  6. #466
    8-bit overflow
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by carop View Post
    The current 32nm SOI is actually PD-SOI (Partially Depleted). During the Technology Forum 2012, the Common Platform decided to go bulk at 28nm and 20nm. Anna Hunter, VP Foundry Business, Samsung said as follows:



    http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...m-process.aspx

    It seems that only STMicroelectronics and a foundry partner (probably IBM because they have a three-way alliance with STMicroelectronics and Leti) are working on FD-SOI (Fully Depleted or Extremely Thin) at 28nm:

    http://www.advancedsubstratenews.com...s-from-soitec/

    It is true that GlobalFoundries had problems with the 32nm SOI process. One should, however, also consider the cost of 28nm FD-SOI R&D process. Who is going to cover the cost of the 28nm SHP process? Given the market penetration as well as performance of the AMD MPUs, is it worth it?

    The AMD CEO said that they will move ahead on 28nm with GlobalFoundries.

    http://semimd.com/blog/2012/03/22/gl...1;-at-dresden/

    The future of AMD MPUs will probably not be clear until the Financial Analyst Day in 2013.

    On the other hand, nothing is set in stone though. It seems Intel's FinFETs are not without problems:

    http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...SOI-shrink-GSS
    My earlier posts in this thread during April time frame mirrors closely to what you state.

    http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=54
    http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showp...&postcount=309

    I have not heard about Leti, but heard about Soitec.

    IBM Common platform has a broad alliance of members.
    IBM Micro, Samsung Semi, Global Foundries are the big 3 and currently working on synchronizing their fabs to a great degree.

    But there are other members are STMicro, Renesas, Toshiba,, Freescale Semiconductor.

    They all do research on both bringing SOI as well bulk HKMG to lower nodes. The RnD is mostly done in IBM facility with Engineers from the various companies.

    Then implementation is done at the individual fabs. Also they choose as to what kind of wafer technology they would choose to make it implementable at a particular node.

    Almost all of them utilize bulk HKMG for their chips or their clientele's chips. SOI seems to be restricted to IBM, GF in the current nodes (32nm) at Partial Depletion. And indications are that they are moving away from SOI at 28nm. Hence the Steamroller based products are 28nm HKMG bulk. Further GF can expand its clientele to include Qualcomm as well as NVIDIA (as AMD has totally divested its stake out of GF) and may be TI.

    With IBM now inking with Global Foundries for 32nm SOI manufacturing,
    http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pr...ease/36465.wss
    GF is has no raison-d-etre to get 28nm up and running just for its 1 customer AMD esspecially with BD troubles and initial troubles with Llano

    STM is the only one attempting to do 28nm SOI and as well as use Full Depletion and base it for its next generation of ARM SOCs. The So it would likely welcome any other partner/client that could help in shouldering the costs as well as brain cells in that process.

  7. #467
    640k who needs more?
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by gljvd View Post
    And here we are at computerx and how many ultrabooks or tablets did you see running amd hardware ? Where are the hp tablets , the dell tablets the samsung tablets ?

    NO where to be seen.

    AMD has conceded the market till sometime early 2013 which could just as easy become second half of 2013.

    AMD has basicly conceded the Windows 8 launch to Intel on the low end.

    A brazos shrink would have blown away atom and would have lead to many design wins and amd having the performance crown in many form factors. This would have generated revenue for them. The other costs associated with it were planed for witchita anyway
    Its been like that generally since the 386sx days - its called OEMs beholden to Intel. And seeing how unreliable AMD is, how can you blame them?

    For tablet, AMD missed the boat from the very beginning - they knew they had a great APU design 2 years ago (from a performance / watt and/or die size pov) and they failed to capitalize and pursue. Complete incompetence.

    But server will save the day <sarcasm>

  8. #468
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by kalelovil View Post
    When AMD originally announed the Bobcat and Bulldozer architecture in 2010, they stated that Bobcat APUs would fit in the 1-10 watt segment and their individual CPU cores would be "sub one watt capable".

    I was somewhat surprised when the E series was released with 18W TDPs.
    I meant that after they launched Brazos, they were able to very quickly reduce it's TDP on selected markets (embedded and tablet). Besides, on AMD's defense they could've said that based on future projections of the "micro-architecture that was used on Brazos", not on "Brazos" (the first implementation of that micro-architecture) itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by gljvd View Post
    Brazos is made at TSMC . Why didn't AMD fab these with them ?They have 28nm running or why did they not switch to 32nm which is what bulldozer is shipping on. 32nm GF would have produced better chips than 40nm
    Others already answered that, it's not easy.

    Besides, AMD had a contract with GF that forced them to use GF to manufacture future APUs on 28nm. Only recently they waived that clause (and that cost a lot of money...).

    Quote Originally Posted by Third Eye View Post
    I have no problem with Brazos at all. It was a wonderful product well executed and performed admirably against competition. The issue is not neccessarily about die-shrink or lack of it. I mostly look at it on how it helps AMD and less than truthful marketing...

    When Brazos family was introduced the Atom competition was intentionally crippled by Intel, fabbed in a 45nm process. Too many restrictions were put by Intel on the hardware & software stacks that need to be present. At this time Brazos with OOO, x64 capability and a VCE and mild gaming capability was heads and shoulders above Atom variants. Well the competitive world does not stop around early 2011 eh!

    Fast forward, Dec2011 Atom is now fabbed in 32nm HKMG. Also it got a Video Engine with Blue Ray 2.0, 1080p support an other things that previously were strong points of Brazos. Granted gaming still sucks compared to Brazos but who would buy netbooks at those price points for games anyway. Going forward Atom is going to have the benefit of fabbing under the best available process

    Silvermont 2013 - 22nm
    Airmont 2014 14nm

    But 1 thing undeniable that has happened with Atom was that what it failed in performance against Brazos, it had gains in power. Each shrink would produce better performance under the same power envelope as well as CPUs that have TDPs that will go lower than the previous generation.

    45nm Pineview had single & dual configs that range from 6.5W-13W, the 32nm Cedarview had all duals with 3.5W-10W. Compare that with Brazos 2.0 which looks like nothing significant at all, just a 100MHz CPU clock speed increase & some GPU core speed increase. So tell me how in scale is it different from the C0 stepping of Ontario or the E-450 zacate?

    I remember John Fruehe(who now very rarely comments here) commenting before that "Brazos is architected to scale below while Bulldozer is architected to scale above". Why did Brazos 2.0 not provide a 6W Ontario successor? The addition of USB3 in the SB, will it reduce the power characteristics of the platform? Does it help to expand the market or provide something that will cement it further in the market? These are the strategic things that I thought RR and team would deliver. And AMD has an age-old tradition. When there is a product that improves the prior product in a minimal fashion, it generally releases it without as much as a whimper. That is how the last few Opterons were released. Brazos 2.0 should have been like that in my opinion. While I have no problems with Trinity being highlighted at Computex(while I do worry about very little by its partners), Brazos 2 is a entirely different story...

    Whether AMD has done a spin or re-spin of the Brazos core, looks like there are some people in this forum spinning things more than AMD marketing really can.

    Cheers!
    I don't understand what is your message here. Brazos 2.0 is the same silicon, it's slightly better than a rebrand. AMD can't make miracles.

    And any hiccups on Krishna/Wichita won't affect Kabini/Temash, it just don't work like that. So AMD did the (good IMHO) decision to lose "performance competitiveness" on 2012 in this market, but counter that with "price AND volume", since they are using a mature product on a very mature node. It's just strategy, and it should reduce costs and maintain or even increase profits on this year in that market.

  9. #469
    640k who needs more?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by sirroman View Post
    I meant that after they launched Brazos, they were able to very quickly reduce it's TDP on selected markets (embedded and tablet). Besides, on AMD's defense they could've said that based on future projections of the "micro-architecture that was used on Brazos", not on "Brazos" (the first implementation of that micro-architecture) itself.
    This is just conjecture, but I think that Bobcat was originally intended for a sub 10W segment of the market
    Remember that when Bobcat was being developed, UMPCs and 'internet appliances' were all the rage. Then netbooks took off, and Intel and AMD adapted their new low power chips to fill that niche.
    It was more as much a matter of AMD scaling up Bobcat into Brazos for netbooks than scaling down to fit post-UMPC tablets. The very low overclockability of Brazos would also be explained by this.

  10. #470
    The bigger question is does this show the lack of competition that Intel is providing? AMD seems confident enough that this will still beat Intel on the low end.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux