Discussion: AMD Ryzen

[scuzzycard]

Well, we've already seen what Zen can do - it's competitive, but it's not going to run faster than Intel's best. Intel doesn't market an 8-core 4.2GHz CPU because they can't - they just choose not to because they have no competition. What I think we will be able to do at this time next year, is to buy an 8-core Intel CPU for $600 or less, when the price has not budged from $1000 for the last 2 years. Intel's high-dollar Extreme Edition will then finally have to be something much faster than a 3GHz snooze-fest.

Besides the economic side of things mentioned by gamerk, we also have the technical side. The 8C BDW runs @3.2GHz on 140W slot. It would be increased to about 250W if clocked at 4.2GHz.

Similar thoughts about AMD. They are releasing a 95W 8C chip (instead a 250W 8C chip) due to technical and economical reasons, not "because they have no competition".

Of course, TDP would be higher. Undesirable, but not impossible. Intel has released a hot-running and even unstable CPU in the past (P3/600), and so has AMD (FX-9590), in the name of competition. I don't want to get hung up on this point, because I never said that I thought Intel would release a 4.2GHz 8-core CPU, at least not until after they deploy 10nm feature size. I only said it was possible. The only prediction I'm making is that Intel will lower its prices on 8-core HEDT CPUs.

 

[Cazalan]

There is no financial advantage to releasing final clocks a few months before launch. Intel also underclocks their own processors when comparing cores. It removes the differences of turbo modes. The TDPs are on the roadmaps.

One thing is to give final exact clocks which aren't known becuase depends on the foundry ability, another very different is to not mention clocks during two years. There is no "financial advantage" on hiding clocks. We have known for a while the clocks for designs made by Intel, APM, Cavium, Broadcomm, ARM,... IBM just presented its new Power9 and they also talked about the clocks they expect to hit.

There is an advantage for AMD as it prevents Intel from over stuffing the channels in advance with more contra-revenue or targeted discounts. Intel doesn't know where they will land at the moment.

 

[jdwii]

There is no financial advantage to releasing final clocks a few months before launch. Intel also underclocks their own processors when comparing cores. It removes the differences of turbo modes. The TDPs are on the roadmaps.

One thing is to give final exact clocks which aren't known becuase depends on the foundry ability, another very different is to not mention clocks during two years. There is no "financial advantage" on hiding clocks. We have known for a while the clocks for designs made by Intel, APM, Cavium, Broadcomm, ARM,... IBM just presented its new Power9 and they also talked about the clocks they expect to hit.

There is an advantage for AMD as it prevents Intel from over stuffing the channels in advance with more contra-revenue or targeted discounts. Intel doesn't know where they will land at the moment.

Intel could actually lower their whole line to fight off anything Amd has to through at them.. I doubt Intel will however.

 

[ComputerSecurityGuy]

Intel will hold off for a while at least. Intel's goal is to have an AMD that's surviving, but isn't dead, beacuase any outcome where AMD is annihilated is bad for Intel.

As for launch, since they are waiting on the node to mature a bit, I'm projecting launch in January. Right on top of Intel's Kaby Lake launch, which looks to be.. underwhelming. It would correlate with their Q1 2017 launch date and also probably give GloFo enough time to get a solid stock of 3gHz @95W, and maybe even some 3.2gHz chips.

Edit: To clarify, Kaby Lake desktop. Might also see Skylake-E debuting then, but that's like a 2-3% IPC boost at most, so pretty marginal.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

They could always cooperate. I forget the term for it, but my professor was talking about where two companies, instead of competing and lowering prices, work together and both increase prices so they both get more money, and the consumers end up getting hurt.

Kaby Lake desktop might end up like Broadwell's disaster.

 

[ComputerSecurityGuy]

Well, done officially it's illegal. But unofficially, it's what tends to happen with any duopoly, the pricing aspect at least.

 

[8350rocks]

If they delay it one more time, it will go down in history as vaporware. It already has that feel. As it stands, AMD is 6 months away from releasing something that might, hopefully, possibly compete with something that Intel released 6 months ago, which was itself a pathetic upgrade of Haswell-E which was released in 2014. The best we can hope for is a price war that gets Intel to lower their ridiculous prices for their 8- and 10-core HEDT CPUs.

Intel has only had minor almost jokelike updates to their architecture since core series first came out. It's impossible for them to do anything else.

Much of their dominance is "on paper" as it is already, with their real advantage being production technology.

All AMD must do is cut the cruft on their processors a bit and they can equal or even surpass Intel, and once they do Intel will be unable to respond except with a massive redesign similar to what AMD has done. Which they have never managed to do in the past and would be foolish to expect of them any time soon.

Well, we've already seen what Zen can do - it's competitive, but it's not going to run faster than Intel's best. Intel doesn't market an 8-core 4.2GHz CPU because they can't - they just choose not to because they have no competition. What I think we will be able to do at this time next year, is to buy an 8-core Intel CPU for $600 or less, when the price has not budged from $1000 for the last 2 years. Intel's high-dollar Extreme Edition will then finally have to be something much faster than a 3GHz snooze-fest.

Source for Intel being able to run an 8 core 16 thread processor at stock clocks at 4.2 GHz?

Because I will personally believe they can pull that off, only when I see it running on air cooling in a video with a full set of benchmarks run.

Not some LOX/LN2 business with a single unigine benchmark...

 

[8350rocks]

Like most people interested in technology I love the info leaks as much as the next person, but you also have to know where those leaks are coming from. Often times it is an unscrupulous technician who is perhaps unhappy with his current pay. An engineer worth his salt will not risk losing their job, and perhaps millions of dollars over a lifetime career, by breaking NDAs or other confidentiality agreements.

I typically go with who has been more accurate over time so far things seem to be adding up and conclusions are starting to be made after Zen releases or they at least do a paper launch we will know. The fact that they underclock the Intel sample is concerning why not just use the same clock speed? Why not tell us the TDP? I personally never trust a company when they are to quiet about a launch. I still remember when GCN came out Amd was in a major hurry to show it off(cause it was great). Now i don't see it. I just hope they don't delay Zen until this time next year waiting for Global foundry to create some magical die.

I smell that "magical die" is not coming... AMD just announced a re-negotiation of the WSA

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2198716

Interesting that people scream AMD is dying, but the Dubai firm that owns GF has included an option to purchase AMD stock up to 19.99% of outstanding shares in the Wafer agreement.

Not to put too fine a point on it...but that does not seem like a firm concerned about the future of that company.

 

[scuzzycard]

If they delay it one more time, it will go down in history as vaporware. It already has that feel. As it stands, AMD is 6 months away from releasing something that might, hopefully, possibly compete with something that Intel released 6 months ago, which was itself a pathetic upgrade of Haswell-E which was released in 2014. The best we can hope for is a price war that gets Intel to lower their ridiculous prices for their 8- and 10-core HEDT CPUs.

Intel has only had minor almost jokelike updates to their architecture since core series first came out. It's impossible for them to do anything else.

Much of their dominance is "on paper" as it is already, with their real advantage being production technology.

All AMD must do is cut the cruft on their processors a bit and they can equal or even surpass Intel, and once they do Intel will be unable to respond except with a massive redesign similar to what AMD has done. Which they have never managed to do in the past and would be foolish to expect of them any time soon.

Well, we've already seen what Zen can do - it's competitive, but it's not going to run faster than Intel's best. Intel doesn't market an 8-core 4.2GHz CPU because they can't - they just choose not to because they have no competition. What I think we will be able to do at this time next year, is to buy an 8-core Intel CPU for $600 or less, when the price has not budged from $1000 for the last 2 years. Intel's high-dollar Extreme Edition will then finally have to be something much faster than a 3GHz snooze-fest.

Source for Intel being able to run an 8 core 16 thread processor at stock clocks at 4.2 GHz?

Because I will personally believe they can pull that off, only when I see it running on air cooling in a video with a full set of benchmarks run.

Not some LOX/LN2 business with a single unigine benchmark...

It's common sense. Most of Intel's current 8-core HEDT CPU's can be overclocked way past 4.2GHz. The success rate is easily over 95% at 4.2. Just browse the forums. If they had to, they would have no problem binning 4.2GHz varients. They don't release the parts at that speed because 1) they don't need to 2) high TDP.

 

[juanrga]

Like most people interested in technology I love the info leaks as much as the next person, but you also have to know where those leaks are coming from. Often times it is an unscrupulous technician who is perhaps unhappy with his current pay. An engineer worth his salt will not risk losing their job, and perhaps millions of dollars over a lifetime career, by breaking NDAs or other confidentiality agreements.

I typically go with who has been more accurate over time so far things seem to be adding up and conclusions are starting to be made after Zen releases or they at least do a paper launch we will know. The fact that they underclock the Intel sample is concerning why not just use the same clock speed? Why not tell us the TDP? I personally never trust a company when they are to quiet about a launch. I still remember when GCN came out Amd was in a major hurry to show it off(cause it was great). Now i don't see it. I just hope they don't delay Zen until this time next year waiting for Global foundry to create some magical die.

I smell that "magical die" is not coming... AMD just announced a re-negotiation of the WSA

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2198716

Interesting that people scream AMD is dying, but the Dubai firm that owns GF has included an option to purchase AMD stock up to 19.99% of outstanding shares in the Wafer agreement.

Not to put too fine a point on it...but that does not seem like a firm concerned about the future of that company.

The post was about Globalfoundries issues, and everyone knows how well Mubadala runs the semiconductor business: multiple delays, cancellation of nodes, process never matching expectations/promises,.. Not only AMD suffers, recall what happened to Apple.

Globalfoundries is so good in the business, that their fabs are almost empty and have to force AMD (via the WSA) to fabricate chips with them; otherwise AMD would choose other foundries. If you read the official announcement. AMD has accepted to pay hundred millions to Globalfoundries for fabricating chips on other foundries like TSMC and Samsung. AMD wouldn't do that if Globalfoundries process were so good. And having to fabricate in other foundries will generate problems for AMD. The first? Paying twice. The second? Healthy companies as Apple will pay a plus to TSMC and Samsung get early access to new process nodes leaving AMD in the queue.

 

[gamerk316]

Yeah, no matter how you read the WSA, it certainly looks like AMD is paying potentially a lot of cash to gain some flexibility. In fact, I'd wager they're easily paying as much as they would have if they hadn't sold their production facilities off in the first place. AMD gained some short term financial relief, and they're paying the price of selling off their production today.

 

[jdwii]

Yeah, no matter how you read the WSA, it certainly looks like AMD is paying potentially a lot of cash to gain some flexibility. In fact, I'd wager they're easily paying as much as they would have if they hadn't sold their production facilities off in the first place. AMD gained some short term financial relief, and they're paying the price of selling off their production today.

Anyone who listened to me i always hated Global foundry i also said its holding Amd back. But Amd will continue to use them which is sad. Even when i was a die hard Amd fanboy i claimed Global foundry was holding Amd back.

 

[cdrkf]

@gamerk that really isn't true. The costs of new process tech is an order of magnitude more than the cost of new designs. Look into intels development budget (which is more than AMDs annual turnover), most of it goes on process tech. AMD poured money into their fabs back when they were making serious money with the first opteron, however as they fell behind they had no choice but to sell off or the fab would have sunk them years ago.

 

[ComputerSecurityGuy]

Yeah. And at this point with the current slowing it looks like that 10nm and 7nm will be hit at the same time for everyone. It's actually plausible that GloFo hits 7nm before Intel because they're skipping 10nm.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Yeah, no matter how you read the WSA, it certainly looks like AMD is paying potentially a lot of cash to gain some flexibility. In fact, I'd wager they're easily paying as much as they would have if they hadn't sold their production facilities off in the first place. AMD gained some short term financial relief, and they're paying the price of selling off their production today.

Anyone who listened to me i always hated Global foundry i also said its holding Amd back. But Amd will continue to use them which is sad. Even when i was a die hard Amd fanboy i claimed Global foundry was holding Amd back.

The only benefit is that in some point in time they might be able to choose another FAB.

It was a mistake though. It has done nothing and it has even hurt them since GloFlo didn't get 22nm going and skipped to 14nm which means AMD sat on 32nm longer than they should have.

 

[-Fran-]

The only benefit is that in some point in time they might be able to choose another FAB.

It was a mistake though. It has done nothing and it has even hurt them since GloFlo didn't get 22nm going and skipped to 14nm which means AMD sat on 32nm longer than they should have.

And what makes you think, with full confidence it seems, AMD keeping the foundries would have made things better? You think they'd be at 10nm or something already?

I'm not justifying GF's incompetence at all, but I just don't see how AMD keeping their fab. capacity in-house would have made things in any way better. It's not like you can just spawn more expertise for fabricating stuff. It's not like you can magically spawn machinery to build chips. It's not like AMD, keeping the fab in their domain, would have managed to catch up to Intel. AMD's move at the time made a lot of sense, and even if they're still getting the short end of the deal, GF's blunders are *someone else's problems*. The new owners infused a butt-load of money into GF; money AMD *did not have* at the time, and they're still having issues with manufacturing (it seems).

I just don't understand why the idea of keeping GF lingers around when it's pretty darn obvious AMD (weirdly enough) predicted the rough times ahead and got rid of it in the best way they could at the time.

Cheers!

 

[jimmysmitty]

Control. With GloFlo they have no control over what process tech they are using nor can they properly test with it.

That is my opinion though and so far it has shown that GloFlo has not been a benefit.

 

[-Fran-]

Control. With GloFlo they have no control over what process tech they are using nor can they properly test with it.

That is my opinion though and so far it has shown that GloFlo has not been a benefit.

Control is not enough. Not by a long shot. I think we already went through this though, haha.

In any case, what good is to have Control when you don't have the money to do anything you want? Remember GF currently has external money (not only AMD) to keep things going. And AMD still has a part of GF, right?

Cheers!

 

[8350rocks]

If they delay it one more time, it will go down in history as vaporware. It already has that feel. As it stands, AMD is 6 months away from releasing something that might, hopefully, possibly compete with something that Intel released 6 months ago, which was itself a pathetic upgrade of Haswell-E which was released in 2014. The best we can hope for is a price war that gets Intel to lower their ridiculous prices for their 8- and 10-core HEDT CPUs.

Intel has only had minor almost jokelike updates to their architecture since core series first came out. It's impossible for them to do anything else.

Much of their dominance is "on paper" as it is already, with their real advantage being production technology.

All AMD must do is cut the cruft on their processors a bit and they can equal or even surpass Intel, and once they do Intel will be unable to respond except with a massive redesign similar to what AMD has done. Which they have never managed to do in the past and would be foolish to expect of them any time soon.

Well, we've already seen what Zen can do - it's competitive, but it's not going to run faster than Intel's best. Intel doesn't market an 8-core 4.2GHz CPU because they can't - they just choose not to because they have no competition. What I think we will be able to do at this time next year, is to buy an 8-core Intel CPU for $600 or less, when the price has not budged from $1000 for the last 2 years. Intel's high-dollar Extreme Edition will then finally have to be something much faster than a 3GHz snooze-fest.

Source for Intel being able to run an 8 core 16 thread processor at stock clocks at 4.2 GHz?

Because I will personally believe they can pull that off, only when I see it running on air cooling in a video with a full set of benchmarks run.

Not some LOX/LN2 business with a single unigine benchmark...

It's common sense. Most of Intel's current 8-core HEDT CPU's can be overclocked way past 4.2GHz. The success rate is easily over 95% at 4.2. Just browse the forums. If they had to, they would have no problem binning 4.2GHz varients. They don't release the parts at that speed because 1) they don't need to 2) high TDP.

Please name a single 8 core 16 thread intel product in enterprise or public sector that has stock clocks at 4.2 or even above something in the 3.4 GHz range base clock.

 

[8350rocks]

Like most people interested in technology I love the info leaks as much as the next person, but you also have to know where those leaks are coming from. Often times it is an unscrupulous technician who is perhaps unhappy with his current pay. An engineer worth his salt will not risk losing their job, and perhaps millions of dollars over a lifetime career, by breaking NDAs or other confidentiality agreements.

I typically go with who has been more accurate over time so far things seem to be adding up and conclusions are starting to be made after Zen releases or they at least do a paper launch we will know. The fact that they underclock the Intel sample is concerning why not just use the same clock speed? Why not tell us the TDP? I personally never trust a company when they are to quiet about a launch. I still remember when GCN came out Amd was in a major hurry to show it off(cause it was great). Now i don't see it. I just hope they don't delay Zen until this time next year waiting for Global foundry to create some magical die.

I smell that "magical die" is not coming... AMD just announced a re-negotiation of the WSA

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2198716

Interesting that people scream AMD is dying, but the Dubai firm that owns GF has included an option to purchase AMD stock up to 19.99% of outstanding shares in the Wafer agreement.

Not to put too fine a point on it...but that does not seem like a firm concerned about the future of that company.

The post was about Globalfoundries issues, and everyone knows how well Mubadala runs the semiconductor business: multiple delays, cancellation of nodes, process never matching expectations/promises,.. Not only AMD suffers, recall what happened to Apple.

Globalfoundries is so good in the business, that their fabs are almost empty and have to force AMD (via the WSA) to fabricate chips with them; otherwise AMD would choose other foundries. If you read the official announcement. AMD has accepted to pay hundred millions to Globalfoundries for fabricating chips on other foundries like TSMC and Samsung. AMD wouldn't do that if Globalfoundries process were so good. And having to fabricate in other foundries will generate problems for AMD. The first? Paying twice. The second? Healthy companies as Apple will pay a plus to TSMC and Samsung get early access to new process nodes leaving AMD in the queue.

You must not have read what I said...

More specifically:

Mubadala included an option for Mubadala to purchase up to 19.99% of outstanding shares of AMD stock.

Not AMD purchasing GF stock.

 

[scuzzycard]

If they delay it one more time, it will go down in history as vaporware. It already has that feel. As it stands, AMD is 6 months away from releasing something that might, hopefully, possibly compete with something that Intel released 6 months ago, which was itself a pathetic upgrade of Haswell-E which was released in 2014. The best we can hope for is a price war that gets Intel to lower their ridiculous prices for their 8- and 10-core HEDT CPUs.

Intel has only had minor almost jokelike updates to their architecture since core series first came out. It's impossible for them to do anything else.

Much of their dominance is "on paper" as it is already, with their real advantage being production technology.

All AMD must do is cut the cruft on their processors a bit and they can equal or even surpass Intel, and once they do Intel will be unable to respond except with a massive redesign similar to what AMD has done. Which they have never managed to do in the past and would be foolish to expect of them any time soon.

Well, we've already seen what Zen can do - it's competitive, but it's not going to run faster than Intel's best. Intel doesn't market an 8-core 4.2GHz CPU because they can't - they just choose not to because they have no competition. What I think we will be able to do at this time next year, is to buy an 8-core Intel CPU for $600 or less, when the price has not budged from $1000 for the last 2 years. Intel's high-dollar Extreme Edition will then finally have to be something much faster than a 3GHz snooze-fest.

Source for Intel being able to run an 8 core 16 thread processor at stock clocks at 4.2 GHz?

Because I will personally believe they can pull that off, only when I see it running on air cooling in a video with a full set of benchmarks run.

Not some LOX/LN2 business with a single unigine benchmark...

It's common sense. Most of Intel's current 8-core HEDT CPU's can be overclocked way past 4.2GHz. The success rate is easily over 95% at 4.2. Just browse the forums. If they had to, they would have no problem binning 4.2GHz varients. They don't release the parts at that speed because 1) they don't need to 2) high TDP.

Please name a single 8 core 16 thread intel product in enterprise or public sector that has stock clocks at 4.2 or even above something in the 3.4 GHz range base clock.

I never said that they did. Please re-read my posts, and you'll see that I was speaking hypothetically.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Control. With GloFlo they have no control over what process tech they are using nor can they properly test with it.

That is my opinion though and so far it has shown that GloFlo has not been a benefit.

Control is not enough. Not by a long shot. I think we already went through this though, haha.

In any case, what good is to have Control when you don't have the money to do anything you want? Remember GF currently has external money (not only AMD) to keep things going. And AMD still has a part of GF, right?

Cheers!

Control is everything. When AMD first spun off GF they had an agreement that allowed them to take only good dies and not pay for bad ones. Now they have to take what they are given.

They have no control over what process tech they use, they are forced to use whatever the other has. Do you think that being stuck on 32nm has not hurt AMD at all? Intel has gone through two other process techs since and is close to doing 10nm. Hell they are already signing agreements to FAB 10nm ARM chips for LG and some other companies.

And no, AMD has no stake in GF anymore:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/121069-the-dream-is-dead-amd-gives-up-its-share-in-globalfoundries

As of 2012 they gave away their 8.8% stake in GF and only have the WSA left which keeps biting them in the behind.

Zen may or may not be a good uArch but it being stuck on one of the currently worst process nodes does not benefit it in any way and if AMD had not spun it off they probably would have, from the time they started till now, paid the same and been able to move to each in-between process node.

I honestly do not think AMD is doing 7nm just because. I think it is because GloFlo will be late to the 10nm party just like they are late to the 14nm party and are trying to catch up. Could you imagine what would happen if Intel started to supply more outside companies with wafer Fibbing? A superior process from a company that invests more in R&D than most other FABs combined? It would kill companies like GF who are behind.

 

[-Fran-]

Control is everything. When AMD first spun off GF they had an agreement that allowed them to take only good dies and not pay for bad ones. Now they have to take what they are given.

They have no control over what process tech they use, they are forced to use whatever the other has. Do you think that being stuck on 32nm has not hurt AMD at all? Intel has gone through two other process techs since and is close to doing 10nm. Hell they are already signing agreements to FAB 10nm ARM chips for LG and some other companies.

And no, AMD has no stake in GF anymore:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/121069-the-dream-is-dead-amd-gives-up-its-share-in-globalfoundries

As of 2012 they gave away their 8.8% stake in GF and only have the WSA left which keeps biting them in the behind.

Zen may or may not be a good uArch but it being stuck on one of the currently worst process nodes does not benefit it in any way and if AMD had not spun it off they probably would have, from the time they started till now, paid the same and been able to move to each in-between process node.

I honestly do not think AMD is doing 7nm just because. I think it is because GloFo will be late to the 10nm party just like they are late to the 14nm party and are trying to catch up. Could you imagine what would happen if Intel started to supply more outside companies with wafer Fibbing? A superior process from a company that invests more in R&D than most other FABs combined? It would kill companies like GF who are behind.

All that you said would be in-line with reality if it not were for the fact you don't know if GF under AMD (or AMD still having their fabs) would even be moving beyond 32nm, or 22nm, or whatever process they could have afforded. That is a big fat assumption I'm not buying.

Having control on process node implies they actually have the means to *go* into that process node and *research* for it. AMD was already partnered with IBM back then because it could not sustain the costs for moving as fast as Intel. Re-phrasing: the word "control" is useless for an organization when "having control" means you have control over nothing competitive. Yes, having control is important, but not when your costs are going overboard and you can consider it's not part of the "core" of your business. AMD is not the only business to have done it (externalize or sell parts that were seen as "core"); IBM has done it throughout their history as well. You could say Intel is the rare exception to the rule and I wonder for how longer they'll be able to keep it that way.

Cheers!

 

[jimmysmitty]

There is no evidence that either way was better, again it is my opinion that it has not benefitted them and they would have been better off.

And I don't think Intel will stop. I think they will open up their FABs to foundry like work and they already have, again LG has signed to FAB 10nm ARM chips already. If Intel starts to pull more business that could pay for the R&D for process nodes then their server and HPC profits will become freed up for other uses.

 

[cdrkf]

There is no evidence that either way was better, again it is my opinion that it has not benefitted them and they would have been better off.

And I don't think Intel will stop. I think they will open up their FABs to foundry like work and they already have, again LG has signed to FAB 10nm ARM chips already. If Intel starts to pull more business that could pay for the R&D for process nodes then their server and HPC profits will become freed up for other uses.

I agree with you that the current situation with GloFo is not helping AMD at all. Also- money taken out of the equation, AMD would be better fabbing their own chips as you say (Intel is proof of that, and back in the day the main advantage AMD had was *better fab and 'to the metal' design*- the AMD 286, AMD 386 and AMD 486 chips were all faster than the Intel parts they were based on thanks to AMD's tweaks to the layout and fab process 😛

The issue was that AMD *were* doing well- and pushing forward with their fabs, but then they were late with Phenom I, the process wasn't good enough, the chip itself had problems and their revenue fell off a cliff in the face of a resurgent Intel with the superior Core 2 (even if I personally think Phenom was a much more elegant design- the benchmarks heavily favored Core). At that point they had to cut back on something- and as the process / manufacturing tech is by far the most expensive that was the obvious choice (if you want to get a comparison to costs of running fab vs fabless just look at ARM). They *had* to sell it off, there was no choice. I honestly believe had they attempted to keep Glofo as part of AMD, they would have gone bankrupt.