I give him credit where due. He's a master chain yanker.Yes, I did. But he's a server guy, so I pushed it into his direction. He suggested that Zambezi is delayed not because of problems, but to make room for Llano.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I give him credit where due. He's a master chain yanker.Yes, I did. But he's a server guy, so I pushed it into his direction. He suggested that Zambezi is delayed not because of problems, but to make room for Llano.
You're assuming that AMD has customers lined up for those "100" BDs. You're also not applying certain properties of microeconomics that are relevant to this type of supply decision. I find that a reading on the the Guns versus butter model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would be apropos here (even though it's technically applies to macroeconomics.)
Let's use your numbers for a simple example. Say AMD can only crank out 1000 32nm chips. If there is demand for Llano that is >= to 1000 then they can sell everyone of those Llanos. But maybe demand for BD chips isn't so high. Maybe it's only 50 BD chips. So, if they made 100 BD chips they would not only not sell 50 BDs but there is also an opportunity cost in the form of Llano chips that could have been made (and also were not sold).
So if it takes, I dunno, $30 to make the chip and AMD sells Llano chips at $100 a piece then the total cost to AMD is $130 for every BD chip not sold (since we're assuming they can sell every Llano they can conceivably make). Technically the opportunity cost still applies to all those chips AMD made BDs instead of Llanos, but I thought is was easier to comprehend this way.
I dunno what AMD is up to, but this would be a scenario where not releasing BD in conjunction with Llano would make sense.
I give him credit where due. He's a master chain yanker.
And what makes you thinking there wouldn't be enough demand for bulldozer if it supposedly kills i7 2600 in multi threaded performance?
I think he's simplifying a bit.
I'm not sure what kind of arrangement AMD has for Llano, but AMD and GF have a new agreement so AMD pays only for good dies not per wafer starts. I don;t know what they pay but I take it this is due to poor yields at GF.
I'm not sure what kind of arrangement AMD has for Llano, but AMD and GF have a new agreement so AMD pays only for good dies not per wafer starts. I don;t know what they pay but I take it this is due to poor yields at GF.
I'm not sure what kind of arrangement AMD has for Llano, but AMD and GF have a new agreement so AMD pays only for good dies not per wafer starts. I don;t know what they pay but I take it this is due to poor yields at GF.
Not necessarily. All of the discussion of wafer yields is not reflecting reality. That is all I will say.
Delays do suggest it's more likely bad than good.
I only know what I read, but it clearly changed the way AMD pays for the dies from GF. From per wafer to per usable die. The only reason I can see this being done is GF is having poor yields, to the point that it isn't viable for AMD. I'll try to find the release.
Edit: Here is an article on it. It's the INQ, but I have read it elsewhere also. $ per 45nm wafers and $ per xxx amount of good 32nm dies.
Sandy Bridge E was supposed to be Q3
Sandy Bridge EP was supposed to be late Q3
Ivy bridge was supposed to be Q4
It should be interesting to see where these all shake out.