goldstone77 :
AMD and GlobalFoundries are not conspiring, it's called a partnership.
😍 The dirty underhanded tactics Intel pulled off for some 20 years was a conspiracy!
Intel was a rich kid bully sitting on the street corner taking AMD's lunch money every day since birth to starve them out, and keep them as weak as possible. If you support that type of treatment and think the measly 1 billion dollar settlement was good enough restitution for a lifetime of crime that's your opinion and you are entitled to that.
🙁 I think it's an unforgivable scandal and very telling about the true nature of Intel as a company! TDP is not a measurement of power consumption, but of a dissipation of heat which there is no universal standard. And you make
guesses about GlobalFoundries based on their history without thinking the changes they have made are not going to make any difference.
You think that GlobalFoundries is hiding their pitch information from you, so you
guess their pitches are bad. You think that their 7nm is 14nm, because you read it in an article you liked. You talk about Roadmaps, but the roadmap for 2018-2019 are unclear by AMD.
What do we know? We know that Epyc is made up of 8 core parts. What process is the next Epyc going to be made from? What's the time line on that? I'm just making
guesses on possible outcomes in best case scenarios, and I'm not pretending that they are anymore than
guesses and potential possibilities! Just because you have a pessimistic outlook on AMD, and it's partners doesn't mean I have to share that pessimism!
I didn't say that AMD and Glofo are consipiring. I said someone else is trying conspiracy theories.
Intel was caught playing dirty once, not "for some 20 years", and this issue was resolved with a mutual agreement signed by AMD and Intel.
AMD has been involved in dirty stuff as well. On the one extreme we have early x86 chips being literal clones of Intel products that AMD got using dirty reverse engineering tactics, until the court forced AMD to stop cloning Intel designs and AMD had to spend money on designing its own chips. On the other extreme we have the last class action lawsuit for "false and misleading statements to investors about the manufacturing and subsequent launch of, as well as the demand for, its Llano microprocessor".
No one here supports Intel dirty tactics, simply we don't buy the pretension that AMD is some kind of non-profit charity organization, when AMD was has been caught playing dirty, cheating,... Not to mention that AMD economic situation is a consequence of the dozen of strategic, management and engineer mistakes made by AMD during its history. AMD financial problems did start in the K6 era, but the true problems did start a bit latter with the fab investment, as tell to us by former
president and chief operating officer of AMD
The trouble in the entire economic model was that AMD did not have enough capital to be able to fund fabs the way they were funding fabs," Raza said. "The point at which I had my final conflict was that [Sanders] started the process of building a new fab with borrowed money prematurely. We didn't need a fab for at least another year. If we had done it a year later, we would have accumulated enough profits to afford the fab in Germany. He laid the foundation for a fundamentally inefficient capital structure that AMD never recovered from. I told him: don't do it. I put the [purchase orders] on hold. He didn't tell me and accelerated the entire process."
And Ruiz, another
president of AMD, confirms
As a result we had a mediocre customer plan, a hit-or-miss reputation, and no global strategy at all...
And all this happened before Intel dirty tacts. Therefore people would stop from pretending that AMD was a kind of successful company with superb designs
From here AMD problems continued because of bad strategies and financial plans
What was sucking away the company's money? It was those darned fabs, just as Raza had feared. In the company's 2001 10-K, AMD estimated, "construction and facilitation costs of Dresden Fab 30 will be approximately $2.3 billion when the facility is fully equipped by the end of 2003." There was also a $410 million to AMD Saxony, the joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary that managed the Dresden fab.
By the following year, AMD upped its estimated costs to fund Dresden to $2.5 billion and added that by the end of 2001, it had invested $1.8 billion. The estimated costs continued to rise, as per the 2003 10-K: "We currently estimate that the construction and facilitation costs of Fab 30 will be $2.6 billion when it is fully equipped by the end of 2005. As of December 29, 2002, we had invested $2.1 billion in AMD Saxony." That same year, AMD plowed ahead with a new Dresden fab ("Fab 36"), investing $440 million into it by the end of the year.
The money for these huge investments all relied on AMD's ability to sell chips, and AMD's ability to sell chips was made easier by its competitive edge over Intel. Unluckily for AMD, Intel didn't take this challenge lying down.
And then was when Intel changed the game thanks to an alternative design from one of its design groups:
This Core architecture accomplished several important goals: it gave Intel a fast, power-efficient 64-bit Xeon in the server market to stem Opteron's tide; it took back the symbolically important performance crown in the desktop market; and it was much more power-efficient than AMD's laptop chips right at the time when laptops began to outsell desktops for the first time. (AMD's power consumption in laptops became competitive only recently with 2011's Llano and 2012's Trinity parts.)
The Core architecture hit AMD where it hurt, but the biggest damage to AMD's long-term health came from Intel's execution strategy. Beginning around the same time, Intel moved to a system of smaller but aggressively timed processor updates that it called "tick-tock."
Then come the ATI disaster. AMD acquired ATI. This was a good idea, the problem were that (i) AMD did pay an huge sum, above the real value of the company, that generated a huge debt for AMD and (ii) the merging of AMD and ATI was a disaster:
Though a good idea, the two companies were never integrated well. "The vision to bring the two companies together, or at least to get a video component business, a graphics component business for AMD made sense," former AMD marketing manager Ian McNaughton told Ars. "How they went about executing that plan failed."
“This was an acquisition treated like a merger,” McNaughton continued. “So the AMD people were AMD people; the ATI people were ATI people. They continued to live in separate buildings, they continued to report into separate structures, they continued to wear their logos. It took a long time to change the mentality, and I don't think it ever really did change."
Differences in culture divided loyalties within the combined company, to the point that another former AMD staffer told us that some employees saw themselves as members of either a “green” AMD (the CPU side) or a “red” AMD (the GPU side). Those employees often prioritized the needs of their division’s individual products rather than the combined products that ATI had been purchased to help build. This led to delays. Reportedly, three versions of the combined “Fusion” chips were produced before one was deemed market-ready, by which point the chips were much later than initially promised.
The internal issues also distracted the company from the very real engineering issues affecting products already in AMD’s pipeline at the time of the ATI purchase—2007’s “Barcelona” Opteron processor arrived late and didn’t meet performance expectations due in part to a nasty bug (the short-term fix for which sapped performance by an additional ten percent or so). This situation was substantially duplicated in 2011 when the “Bulldozer” architecture also arrived late and with less performance than promised. In both cases, AMD stumbled when it badly needed a win, and Intel's solid execution during this period threw AMD's problems into even harsher relief.
"The next resulting four years of lack of innovation [after the ATI purchase] was probably one of those hangovers of that failed acquisition," McNaughton told Ars, "because they didn't come down and lay down the law and say 'this is our roadmap and our vision and let's start executing to the roadmap,' like you have to do when you have 6,000 engineers on staff."
Then come the dirty play from Intel, which had a small impact on AMD, and the situation that AMD is facing is the result of their own mistakes:
By contrast, Intel holds about $23 billion in long-term debt obligations.) Even if Intel had not acted the way it did, AMD faced an uphill battle—and that slope has simply gotten steeper as Intel has grown larger and as AMD’s smaller competitors (read: ARM licensees) have grown more numerous.
“They’ve put themselves in this corner of the marketplace, and it’s an odd one, they admit it," Craig Stice, an analyst with IHS Global Insight, told Ars. “But at the same time, you never get the sense that they are making strides for attempting to get themselves out of that corner. You never get the intention that they want to be bigger than Intel. They seem happy in their little corner to an extent and that piece of the market has been dwindling from them.”
Even AMD former chiefs admit that Intel wasn't the problem. The problem ios back to Sanders:
Former CFO Barton is not convinced that the company has much a future. “[Even without the lawsuit against Intel,] it wouldn’t have mattered,” he said. “[Sanders] took his shot, and the game’s been played.”
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-underdog-stuck-it-to-intel/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/amd-on-ropes-from-the-top-of-the-mountain-to-the-deepest-valleys/
The pair of articles is old and don't cont the recent history with AMD continuing making mistakes, such as the ambidextrous strategy and posterior cancellation of projects, the failed Seamicro business acquisition, which added another half billion to AMD debt, or all the disaster behind the new RTG group.
TDP is about heat dissipated, which by virtue of the first law of thermodynamics is related to the power is being consumed at the socket level. There is a standard definition of TDP that everyone has been using, including AMD, until Zen. With Zen, AMD invented a new metric, that mislead consumers. People doesn't follow the details of technology, see a 95W chip from AMD and believes it is more efficient than a 140W chip from the competence, still reviews prove that the 140W chip dissipates less heat than the 95W chip. The same about the 65W rating that AMD gives to the 1700, as reviews have noted:
The 1700 consumes 90W in reality. AMD bull*** its TDP.
You claim that we have to ignore all the history of Globalfoundries and now it is all different. Still you above quote them saying that the 14nm --> 7nm node brings 2x scaling factor, when it would bring a 4x factor. They are deliberately misleading again, nothing has changed.
I don't think that their 7nm is 14nm, because I read it in an article. I know their 7nm is in reality a true 14nm node, because I have made the math. I have posted the math a dozen of times in this thread. Amazing that it has been ignored another dozen of times...
I don't think that GlobalFoundries is hiding pitch information from me. I know that Globalfoundries is hiding the information to everyone:
We’re not advertising what our pitches are, we are just saying we have a very competitive base 7nm offering,” said Patton.
The roadmap for 2018 was posted here many times. I will post it once again
Zen2 is planned for 2019, but products and codenames aren't still disclosed. It is not even confirmed that Zen2 will fit in the AM4 socket.
When I refused all the nonsense and hype surrounded AMD products I didn't have a pessimistic outlook. I was having a realistic outlook. When I refuted nonsensical claims about Steamroller, Kaveri, Excavator, Carrizo, Carrixo-L 300-series Fury-X Polaris, Vega, Zen EPYC, Summit Ridge, ThreadRipper,... I was being realist.
Jaguar cores @ 3.2GHz on Sony console update was nonsense. 16CU Bristol Ridge was nonsense. Steamroller killing Haswell was nonsense. HBM on Carrizo was nonsense. Fury-X leaving Nvidia in the dust for a decade was nonsense. Zen achieving 5GHz on air, IPC above SKL, 2x256bit FAC units, 162mm² die, 20% better efficiency than Broadwell-E, beating KBL on games, 2016 launch, beating 20-core Xeon on Blender,... all that was nonsense. As was nonsense the pretension that a magic BIOS/AGESA was going to fix the latency problem on RyZen.
I am not against AMD. I am against nonsense, hype and certain suspect press press misleading people.
By the similar reason I am not being pessimistic when I say that the idea of Zen2 8-core chip achieving 5.6GHz on air with a TDP of 57W is
NONSENSE. It is not a question about being pessimist/optimist fan of a brand or another, it is about having a minimal knowledge of the laws of physics.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram