GlobalFoundries Outlines 22 nm Roadmap

[TuxDave]

Globalfoundries Starts on 22nm Fab & Announces First non-AMD Customer

Until this morning, Globalfoundries only had a single customer - AMD, but that just changed with the announcement that STMicro would be using their fabs.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...ts/showdoc.aspx?i=3614

[/quote]

Ah that's neat. I still have a special place for STMicro in my heart for letting me use their fab to produce my crappy chip to let me graduate.

 

[Atechie]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: deputc26
Excellent explanations drizek and IDC, I was just wondering how AMD had managed to be competitive with Intel for so long with inferior process tech. I had shakily decided that their fabs must have been significantly cheaper to operate; architecture superiority makes much more sense.

They have'nt been competitive (in a business sense) with Intel, that is the whole issue. Intel makes money and AMD loses money, much of this has to do with what was previously posted about how Intel can make twice the chips for the same cost, and often sell them for more $$$.

Just look at the die size of Phailure2...the same as the Core i7 die size.
Now look at the prices for the either a Phailure2 or a Core i7...and then compare the Die size of a Core2Quad with the Phailure2 and the price.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist in order to see why AMD is bleeding money.

This is just flaming material. The Phenom II is a great product and moved AMD in the right direction.

It's "flaming material" to state the facts?
Go away fanboy...

 

[Atechie]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Atechie
Just look at the die size of Phailure2...the same as the Core i7 die size.
Now look at the prices for the either a Phailure2 or a Core i7...and then compare the Die size of a Core2Quad with the Phailure2 and the price.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist in order to see why AMD is bleeding money.

The funny thing is that you might actually have some valid points, but no one will listen to them due to your presentation.

Which goes to show how useless "political correctness" is.

The Phenom1+2 was late and sucked in performance compared to Intel.
Fighting last year tech for performance is not a win.
Just like eg the FX5800 or the 2900XT, the Phenom series has problems.
From performance to die size to normal OC....it's a dud in my eyes.
Just like the Pentium D.

 

[drizek]

Political correctness is the least of your worries.

Write in complete sentences. Not fragments.

 

[Atechie]

Originally posted by: drizek
Political correctness is the least of your worries.

Write in complete sentences. Not fragments.

Post valid argumetns, not fallices...ball in your court.

 

[taltamir]

If they merely close the gap to Intel by delivering even lower performing xtors (in the past AMD was both late and lower performing...12 months later than Intel to deliver 45nm and even then the Idsat, etc, were lower than Intel's) for the technology node than they might have otherwise delivered had their timeline included a 12 month gap then it equally fails to serve their customers and ultimately the consumers as the products generated will be all the less competitive in the marketplace when we go to Newegg to make our purchasing decisions.

I have this notion that both the 65nm and 45nm transitions for AMD were sub par compared to those same labels for intel... although there was a pretty decent change in early and later model 65nm despite the same label.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: deputc26
Excellent explanations drizek and IDC, I was just wondering how AMD had managed to be competitive with Intel for so long with inferior process tech. I had shakily decided that their fabs must have been significantly cheaper to operate; architecture superiority makes much more sense.

They have'nt been competitive (in a business sense) with Intel, that is the whole issue. Intel makes money and AMD loses money, much of this has to do with what was previously posted about how Intel can make twice the chips for the same cost, and often sell them for more $$$.

Just look at the die size of Phailure2...the same as the Core i7 die size.
Now look at the prices for the either a Phailure2 or a Core i7...and then compare the Die size of a Core2Quad with the Phailure2 and the price.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist in order to see why AMD is bleeding money.

This is just flaming material. The Phenom II is a great product and moved AMD in the right direction.

It's "flaming material" to state the facts?
Go away fanboy...

It's "flaming material" to use moronic terms like "Phailure2".

 

[Atechie]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: deputc26
Excellent explanations drizek and IDC, I was just wondering how AMD had managed to be competitive with Intel for so long with inferior process tech. I had shakily decided that their fabs must have been significantly cheaper to operate; architecture superiority makes much more sense.

They have'nt been competitive (in a business sense) with Intel, that is the whole issue. Intel makes money and AMD loses money, much of this has to do with what was previously posted about how Intel can make twice the chips for the same cost, and often sell them for more $$$.

Just look at the die size of Phailure2...the same as the Core i7 die size.
Now look at the prices for the either a Phailure2 or a Core i7...and then compare the Die size of a Core2Quad with the Phailure2 and the price.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist in order to see why AMD is bleeding money.

This is just flaming material. The Phenom II is a great product and moved AMD in the right direction.

It's "flaming material" to state the facts?
Go away fanboy...

It's "flaming material" to use moronic terms like "Phailure2".

Then AMD shouldn't have made the CPU sound like a i7 competitor...big failure.

If that is all your gripe is about I ppitty you...for trying to make a name, like eg. "dustbuster" into a "deal-breaker".

If that is your problem, and you can refute the claims I made...then it's your arse that is sore not mine...so stop the smoke&mirrors and deal with the facts.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Atechie
Then AMD shouldn't have made the CPU sound like a i7 competitor...big failure.

If that is all your gripe is about I ppitty you...for trying to make a name, like eg. "dustbuster" into a "deal-breaker".

If that is your problem, and you can refute the claims I made...then it's your arse that is sore not mine...so stop the smoke&mirrors and deal with the facts.

What smoke and mirrors? No one on this thread made any assertions not based in fact that I could tell, yet you are trying to stir up trouble. It is not likely to be successful on this board, since the only person who appears to be a fanboy in this thread is you.

Also, it was a good bit of marketing to make the Phenom use the same nomenclature as the i7. It helps to link the two for consumers, and may lead to extra sales as unknowledgable people may purchase the cheaper of the two products without knowing the difference in performance. It seems like a smart move to me, at least. It is just annoying to those of us in the know.

By the way, I hope you are having a better day today, since it seemed like you were is a very bad mood when you made all of your comments. Also when you make comments like that, no one around here will listen to them, they just mark you as someone to ignore and go on their way. I am only commenting, since you may be able to salvage your credibility around here by avoiding writing obviously inflammatory responses like you have.

 

[Idontcare]

ArchAngel777, Martimus, and dguy6789,

I appreciate your efforts to keep this thread clean and on-topic. Really I do.

Originally posted by: Atechie
Just look at the die size of Phailure2...the same as the Core i7 die size.
Now look at the prices for the either a Phailure2 or a Core i7...and then compare the Die size of a Core2Quad with the Phailure2 and the price.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist in order to see why AMD is bleeding money.

Originally posted by: Atechie
It's "flaming material" to state the facts?
Go away fanboy...

Originally posted by: Atechie
Post valid argumetns, not fallices...ball in your court.

Originally posted by: Atechie
Then AMD shouldn't have made the CPU sound like a i7 competitor...big failure.

If that is all your gripe is about I ppitty you...for trying to make a name, like eg. "dustbuster" into a "deal-breaker".

If that is your problem, and you can refute the claims I made...then it's your arse that is sore not mine...so stop the smoke&mirrors and deal with the facts.

Atechie,

It is not flaming material to state the facts, however I know of no credible source that has established as fact that Phenom2 is Phailure2.

To my knowledge Phenom2 and the 45nm transition has been attributed as being in large part the reason for the successful increase in key metrics of success for AMD in terms of recapturing previously lost marketshare, increasing gross margins, and increasing revenue. Not enough to lift them into net profit territory but doing better than the days of 65nm and Phenom 1.

No one on this forum (to my knowledge) uses the term "Phailure2"...your's is the first use of the term I have seen. If you really want to establish Phenom2 = Phailure2 on this forum then you are going to need to provide some concrete and reliable data regarding how and why you feel this to be the case, we are a logical bunch here, if the data fits then the adjectives will follow naturally.

Right now I don't see labeling Phenom2 as Phailure2 as being something that follows naturally from the existing body of data. You are of course free to present data that paints a different picture. But just showing up and posting new adjectives like Phailure2 isn't going to convince anyone you know what you are talking about, it's just going to result in elevated stress levels at the incredulity of such a label, which will then result in flame posts (hence the moniker "flame bait" for your post).

If you care to have people take you seriously, take your opinion and posts seriously, then you need to use less inflammatory statements and less flame-baiting rhetoric. This is painfully self-evident which is why so many posters in this thread bothered to take time out of their lives to assist you in understanding this.

If you don't care to have people take you seriously then you need to take some time to seriously reflect on yourself and ask yourself why you are bothering to waste your time posting flame-bait posts in these forums since you have already accepted the fact no one thinks your posts worthy of contemplation or consideration.

It is my hope that these words don't fall on deaf ears, it took time to create this post so clearly I hope you find value in my attempt to provide you assistance. Ordinarily this type of a post would not be seen by the public, I would send it by pm, but seeing that so many other caring posters have already weighed in on this little sub-topic I figured I'd make this public as well in an effort to give some measure of closure and to effect a calming down atmosphere.


edit: added atechie quotes for the record.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Atechie


Then AMD shouldn't have made the CPU sound like a i7 competitor...big failure.

If that is all your gripe is about I ppitty you...for trying to make a name, like eg. "dustbuster" into a "deal-breaker".

If that is your problem, and you can refute the claims I made...then it's your arse that is sore not mine...so stop the smoke&mirrors and deal with the facts.

Ummm...you need to learn quite a bit before you can take that attitude...

1. Phenom II isn't a competitor for i7...Opteron is. AMD have always been clear on that. Is it a good competitor? It still is in the VM space and any Enterprise system (those that need more than 16 cores). Remember that Opterons are now 6 core and wil be 12 core in Q4.

2. There is a world of difference between Phenom I and Phenom II, just as there was between the Northwood and Prescott versions of the P4. Northwood was a definite success, and Prescott was almost as bad as it gets...
Phenom I wasn't as bad as the Prescott, but it was pretty bad...Phenom II are quite equal to their C2D competitors.

 

[Martimus]

I do wonder if they are able to jump to 22nm so quickly because FAB 2 is being built specifically for 22nm production, so they won't have additional time to change components over? At the same time, I don't know if that is a valid theory or not, since I have never been in the industry.

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Atechie


Then AMD shouldn't have made the CPU sound like a i7 competitor...big failure.

If that is all your gripe is about I ppitty you...for trying to make a name, like eg. "dustbuster" into a "deal-breaker".

If that is your problem, and you can refute the claims I made...then it's your arse that is sore not mine...so stop the smoke&mirrors and deal with the facts.

Ummm...you need to learn quite a bit before you can take that attitude...

1. Phenom II isn't a competitor for i7...Opteron is. AMD have always been clear on that. Is it a good competitor? It still is in the VM space and any Enterprise system (those that need more than 16 cores). Remember that Opterons are now 6 core and wil be 12 core in Q4.

2. There is a world of difference between Phenom I and Phenom II, just as there was between the Northwood and Prescott versions of the P4. Northwood was a definite success, and Prescott was almost as bad as it gets...
Phenom I wasn't as bad as the Prescott, but it was pretty bad...Phenom II are quite equal to their C2D competitors.

Phenom is indeed the competitor for i7, Opteron is competing with Xeon.
Yes, but all that did was move up to the performance levels of yorkfield. By naming the line with the same numbers as i7, AMD deliberately chose to compete with i7. Which is a bad idea, considering how badly i7 tramples PhenomII.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: ilkhan
Phenom is indeed the competitor for i7, Opteron is competing with Xeon.
Yes, but all that did was move up to the performance levels of yorkfield. By naming the line with the same numbers as i7, AMD deliberately chose to compete with i7. Which is a bad idea, considering how badly i7 tramples PhenomII.

Actually if I can take liberty in assuming I understand where viditor is coming from, I believe what he basically means is that i7 (as in bloomfield) is basically the server Zeon Nehalem EP chip (and x58 platform) billed as an enthusiast extreme level system...not intended to compete with PhII.

Considering that i7 accounts for ~1% of Intel's revenue, I'd say its acceptable to posit that i7 is not in competition with PhII. AMD would have liked it to have been competitive, but it wasn't in the cards. If Intel were shipping 50% of its revenue on i7 chips alone then I'd agree PhII is competing with i7, but that's just not the case.

PhII competes with Q9x00 and Q8x00, Intel's mainstream platforms. Whenever i5 and i3 debuts then we can talk about the practical considerations of how PhII competes with the nehalem version of the consumer platform.

PhII's naming scheme was certainly to imply competitiveness with i7, I'll give you that as I've made a few diatribes against AMD over the subject in my past posts. But just because AMD's marketing and sales decided to get slick willy over it doesn't mean the engineers or project managers actually believe the label on the box is warranted.

Originally posted by: Martimus
I do wonder if they are able to jump to 22nm so quickly because FAB 2 is being built specifically for 22nm production, so they won't have additional time to change components over? At the same time, I don't know if that is a valid theory or not, since I have never been in the industry.

Nope, has nothing to do with it actually, entirely orthogonal events. The third-order benefit of FAB 2 on the 22nm development team is purely the morale boosting effects of knowing their company has a tentative future. Beyond that there is little interaction or involvement between the two teams.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: ilkhan
Phenom is indeed the competitor for i7, Opteron is competing with Xeon.
Yes, but all that did was move up to the performance levels of yorkfield. By naming the line with the same numbers as i7, AMD deliberately chose to compete with i7. Which is a bad idea, considering how badly i7 tramples PhenomII.

Actually if I can take liberty in assuming I understand where viditor is coming from, I believe what he basically means is that i7 (as in bloomfield) is basically the server Zeon Nehalem EP chip (and x58 platform) billed as an enthusiast extreme level system...not intended to compete with PhII.

Considering that i7 accounts for ~1% of Intel's revenue, I'd say its acceptable to posit that i7 is not in competition with PhII. AMD would have liked it to have been competitive, but it wasn't in the cards. If Intel were shipping 50% of its revenue on i7 chips alone then I'd agree PhII is competing with i7, but that's just not the case.

PhII competes with Q9x00 and Q8x00, Intel's mainstream platforms. Whenever i5 and i3 debuts then we can talk about the practical considerations of how PhII competes with the nehalem version of the consumer platform.

PhII's naming scheme was certainly to imply competitiveness with i7, I'll give you that as I've made a few diatribes against AMD over the subject in my past posts. But just because AMD's marketing and sales decided to get slick willy over it doesn't mean the engineers or project managers actually believe the label on the box is warranted.

Liberty granted and accuracy confirmed...

i7 is a server chip, even in it's EE form.
The most prevelant servers are single socket servers (at least for now), and for Intel the i7 fits the bill quite nicely there. AMD has a single socket Opteron line as well (Suzuka), but for most things it gets no publicity at all (for obvious reasons).

 

[ilkhan]

IDC: While I can see that viewpoint, as long as Intel calls [bloomfield] a consumer chip, Phenom II isn't its competition. Artificial marketing perhaps, but theres a line. Ive said for a long time that bloomfield is a server chip in consumer clothing, but its still in consumer clothing.

P4 was the last chip (for the forseeable future and the past) that will have been designed ground up for consumer desktop use. Conroe was a derivative of P-M, Nehalem is a server chip first, last I heard sandy is a mobile chip first. You can argue that for sandy's timeframe the consumer market will be predominately laptops (as it already is), I suppose.

 

[Extelleron]

Every time they release a new process technology AMD says they are "closing the gap." Every time the gap stays the same and AMD is one year behind.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Every time they release a new process technology AMD says they are "closing the gap." Every time the gap stays the same and AMD is one year behind.

Shhh...you aren't suppose to point out the fact that the emperor has no clothes...now say it with me "oooh my mr. emperor sir, what fine golden threaded clothes you have on today ". Now go drink some of the community koolaid, I hear today's flavor is grape

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Every time they release a new process technology AMD says they are "closing the gap." Every time the gap stays the same and AMD is one year behind.

Shhh...you aren't suppose to point out the fact that the emperor has no clothes...now say it with me "oooh my mr. emperor sir, what fine golden threaded clothes you have on today ". Now go drink some of the community koolaid, I hear today's flavor is grape

Yeah it's the same way with TSMC as well. They always make their process roadmap sound great but in reality they are always reporting that their process is ready when the only things coming off the line are test chips. If you believed TSMC they had 45nm in 2007 and now we are looking at wide availability of 40nm just coming in late 2009. It's not something you get to say often, but Intel is actually by far the most honest about their process transititions. Everything happens like clockwork every 24 months; I suppose they have nothing to lie about.