GlobalFoundries Increases AMD 32nm Shipments by 80%

[Guest]

GlobalFoundries has been chastised by AMD's new CEO Rory Read for the production problems that limited the availability of 32 nm processors.

GlobalFoundries Increases AMD 32nm Shipments by 80% : Read more

 

[ragenalien]

Good for AMD, now they might be able to actually make a profit with their cpu's.

 

[billj214]

I wonder if Global Foundries will produce it's own CPU and provide some competition, I would bet they get on the ARM bandwagon in the near future!

 

[memadmax]

Just feed them more rice cakes and they will be pumpin out more chips in no time...

 

[de5_Roy]

more of those fx cpus will be flooding the market and 'heating up' the competition very soon!!

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]more of those fx cpus will be flooding the market and 'heating up' the competition very soon!![/citation]

"You have quality? We have the quantity!"

 

[utroz]

Atleast yields are getting better on 32nm. It is probably BD and not Llano that is yielding better, Llano is a pain to make because adding a Gpu designed for TSMC's 40nm lowish power process to basically an Athlon x4 designed for 45nm hp SOI and putting it all on a 32nm High Performance SOI process is much harder than it sounds. I have great hope for Trinity yielding much much higher than Llano considering they should be able to take all they have learned from the llano issues and also the bd issues and make a high yielding high frequency scaling APU.

 

[bak0n]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Be nice if AMD was out in front of something instead of almost WAY behind..[/citation]

Discrete graphics. Nuff' said.

 

[alidan]

um... lets do a bit of math here,

lets say a 100% used wafer is 100% (realistically parts of the wafer cant be used, but lets assume that 100% of it is usable for easier math)

lets also assume that you can not go passed 100%

for the ability for them to claim 80% better, means that the yields on chips prior to that was at the very best 55%

i wish i knew what the average yield per wafer was so i can figure out how bad gf was doing prior to this, so lets get some assumptions.

if normal yeild is = what it was prior to 80% boost at best
95 = 52%
90 = 50%
85 = 47%
80 = 44%
75 = 41%

 

[alyoshka]

Ok, so this was one of the factors too in the demand meeting supply issues we have seen with the Hot FX.

 

[aznshinobi]

To those who think Ivy will make a huge difference, it won't. At most gives you that PCI 3.0 support you guys were craving for, but other than that. It's just a die shrink of Sandy Bridge, it's a nice feat, but not a huge leap.

 

[mr_wobbles]

aznshinobi, you are right. Plus if you've seen the amount of cores and the Clocks on IVB, im not impressed. Intel fans, stick to your SB-Es and im still going to laugh at your overpriced CPU's.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]aznshinobi[/nom]To those who think Ivy will make a huge difference, it won't. At most gives you that PCI 3.0 support you guys were craving for, but other than that. It's just a die shrink of Sandy Bridge, it's a nice feat, but not a huge leap.[/citation]

Actually, you're wrong in a major way, and in a minor way. Intel does not do pure shrinks anymore, and has not for a while. You will see some minor performance improvements. You also left out USB 3.0, which now does not need extra chips added.

So, we should get better clock speed, lower power, PCIE 3.0, USB 3.0, better graphics, all while being cheaper for Intel to make, and cheaper for motherboard makers in the not so long term.

It's not earth shattering, but it's a solid improvement from a position of already staggering superiority.

 

[alyoshka]

ehm ehm "already staggering superiority"...... I bet they liked the sound of it.

 

[tomfreak]

So AMD yields are better when u can come out 4.5GHz stock clock 125w TDP bulldozer?

 

[tmk221]

good, so now it's up to AMD if they get their sh*t together with piledriver or not

 

[esrever]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]um... lets do a bit of math here,lets say a 100% used wafer is 100% (realistically parts of the wafer cant be used, but lets assume that 100% of it is usable for easier math)lets also assume that you can not go passed 100%for the ability for them to claim 80% better, means that the yields on chips prior to that was at the very best 55%i wish i knew what the average yield per wafer was so i can figure out how bad gf was doing prior to this, so lets get some assumptions.if normal yeild is = what it was prior to 80% boost at best95 = 52%90 = 50%85 = 47%80 = 44%75 = 41%[/citation]
average yields on a new process is ~25%. Considering AMD was reporting low yields on llano, llano would have been below 20% yield. Bulldozer would probably be around 15-20% yields.

80% better would put yield up to above 30% probably which is still not optimal.

 

[doive1231]

They have increased shipments by 80%. You can't assume a lot about increasing yields since they could have increased production instead.

The key point about IB is the better power efficiency which is driving Intel's strategy far into the future as the number of transistors increase, heat must be managed to achieve the performance increases we all want.

 

[Haserath]

80% more shipments doesn't necessarily mean 80% better yield... It means they have either increased wafers and/or have higher yields.

 

[_zxzxzx_]

Good thing for AMD. I think they're just stumbling to find something solid to build on at the moment.

 

[zolton33]

Good news.

 

[Guest]

Yeilds and all...does not help Bulldozer compete against Sandybridge in performance stakes!

 

[garyshome]

Well let's see 80% of 10 is 8 right? Great Improvement!

 

[nforce4max]

At least this will help reduce costs per unit with better yields but performance isn't going to increase until much later on with better binned samples.

 

[serendipiti]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]um... lets do a bit of math here,lets say a 100% used wafer is 100% (realistically parts of the wafer cant be used, but lets assume that 100% of it is usable for easier math)lets also assume that you can not go passed 100%for the ability for them to claim 80% better, means that the yields on chips prior to that was at the very best 55%i wish i knew what the average yield per wafer was so i can figure out how bad gf was doing prior to this, so lets get some assumptions.if normal yeild is = what it was prior to 80% boost at best95 = 52%90 = 50%85 = 47%80 = 44%75 = 41%[/citation]

Well, they are talking about production, not yields. If they managed to shorten the time needed to get the job done, it could be possible to achieve that 80% production increase without changes in yields...

it's funny to see GF (I think it is the "outsourced" fab from AMD, true ?) making ARM chips... I know it's common, and the drawing of who is who in this bussiness i quite astounding at least...

But, does this mean no trinity delays ?