Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Sat 28th Feb 2009 20:29 UTC
AMD AMD recently said that they'd be starting onto the 32nm track, beginning production around the fourth quarter of 2010. Intel, on the other hand, has already demonstrated some of its prototypes and will be rolling these babies out to the public come the fourth quarter of-- ah-- this year. AMD isn't manufacturing these chips, however, and is instead laying the load on the newborn Foundry Company, which was created with the help of AMD out of ATI.
Thread beginning with comment 351122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: stupid
by weildish on Sat 28th Feb 2009 22:22 UTC in reply to "stupid"
weildish
Member since:
2008-12-06

What I was saying is that, these days, anyway, AMD has followed in Intel's footsteps - not that AMD's products are inferior to Intel's. Intel does it first. AMD does it cheaper, later. I'm an AMD fan myself because I can generally afford it better than Intel. But there's no denying that AMD generally does what Intel did six months to a year ago. Perhaps AMD thought of it first and have plenty of plans for the future that we can't even imagine, but from a consumer's point of view, they lag behind.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: stupid
by pooo on Sun 1st Mar 2009 03:03 in reply to "RE: stupid"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

What you are saying is just wrong. AMD has *led* Intel several times "in recent years". When did intel integrate a memory controller??? Oh was it last month? I believe AMD had this and many other innovations years ago. AMD follows on process and it isn't for lack of vision, it is for lack of money. For IDMs moving forward to new processes is insanely expensive and only a few companies can stay at the cutting edge, Intel being of of them. Another one is TSMC who only stays there by dealing in huge volumes. AMD just doesn't have the market share to produce the money to produce the new fabs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: stupid
by kaiwai on Sun 1st Mar 2009 12:13 in reply to "RE[2]: stupid"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

What you are saying is just wrong. AMD has *led* Intel several times "in recent years". When did intel integrate a memory controller??? Oh was it last month? I believe AMD had this and many other innovations years ago. AMD follows on process and it isn't for lack of vision, it is for lack of money. For IDMs moving forward to new processes is insanely expensive and only a few companies can stay at the cutting edge, Intel being of of them. Another one is TSMC who only stays there by dealing in huge volumes. AMD just doesn't have the market share to produce the money to produce the new fabs.


Which is why they're gradually moving to become fabless. IMHO the new spin off company should merge with TSMC and bring even larger economies of scale which should give this new 'chipzilla' enough grunt to match and over take when it comes to fabrication technologies.

AMD has always been able to bring together the technology (I remember back when the original Athlon was announced) - the problem has always been the fabrication side; either they were behind in technology or they didn't have the capacity to keep up with demand. Push the manufacturing off to an organisation that specialises in it and focus on the development side. It would free up a massive amount of money and thus can be used to really focus on design and technology rather than the production side.

Edited 2009-03-01 12:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: stupid
by cb_osn on Sun 1st Mar 2009 09:25 in reply to "RE: stupid"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

What I was saying is that, these days, anyway, AMD has followed in Intel's footsteps - not that AMD's products are inferior to Intel's. Intel does it first. AMD does it cheaper, later. I'm an AMD fan myself because I can generally afford it better than Intel. But there's no denying that AMD generally does what Intel did six months to a year ago. Perhaps AMD thought of it first and have plenty of plans for the future that we can't even imagine, but from a consumer's point of view, they lag behind.


Keep in mind that it was less than three years ago that Intel released the Core 2 series of processors and took the crown from AMD. Prior to that, AMD's Athlon chips consistently destroyed the NetBurst based Pentium 4 in terms of performance, heat, power consumption, and price.

Intel is winning right now because they're playing the fab game and AMD simply can't keep up. But this is limited by processes and material sciences and will come to a stop fairly soon. The focus will return to chip design where AMD will have a chance to pull themselves back to the top.

And let's hope they do, because another round of competition will be a win for us all.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: stupid
by gilboa on Sun 1st Mar 2009 11:41 in reply to "RE: stupid"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

What I was saying is that, these days, anyway, AMD has followed in Intel's footsteps - not that AMD's products are inferior to Intel's. Intel does it first. AMD does it cheaper, later. I'm an AMD fan myself because I can generally afford it better than Intel. But there's no denying that AMD generally does what Intel did six months to a year ago. Perhaps AMD thought of it first and have plenty of plans for the future that we can't even imagine, but from a consumer's point of view, they lag behind.


Ugghh. People have such a short memory.

A. AMD was the first to introduce 64bit extension in an x86 CPU. (AKA AMD64 or x86_64.). If it was up to Intel you'd be using Itanium right now.
B. AMD was the first to introduce non-shared bus design in an x86 CPU. (The original Athlon; most notably the AthlonMP series.)
C. AMD was also the first to introduce on-die memory controller in an x86 CPU. Again, 5 years later, Intel has finally caught up. (Nehalem/Core 7i)
D. AMD was the first to introduce NUMA architecture in an x86 CPU. (Opteron/Athlon64). Intel has yet to fully caught up. (Core 7i/EP will be released later this month; Nehalem MP will be released in Q3).
E. AMD was the first one to introduce single die dual core CPU and the first to introduce single die quad core CPUs. As always, the Core 7i was the first one to achieve the same.
... and I can continue.

Granted, the Core 7i is the best single-socket-CPU right now. But many of the ideas (minus SMT) that make it so great, came from AMD. (Or actually from Alpha, but that's another matter altogether.)

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: stupid
by tyrione on Sun 1st Mar 2009 21:33 in reply to "RE[2]: stupid"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Might I add, Intel paid Compaq [DEC at the time] $1 Billion to settle patent infringements up the wazzu regarding the thievery of the Alpha architecture.

There once was a time when CPU wars existed and they were a blast to follow.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: stupid
by bannor99 on Mon 2nd Mar 2009 15:48 in reply to "RE: stupid"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

What I was saying is that, these days, anyway, AMD has followed in Intel's footsteps - not that AMD's products are inferior to Intel's. Intel does it first. AMD does it cheaper, later. I'm an AMD fan myself because I can generally afford it better than Intel. But there's no denying that AMD generally does what Intel did six months to a year ago. Perhaps AMD thought of it first and have plenty of plans for the future that we can't even imagine, but from a consumer's point of view, they lag behind.


Unless you're talking about production, AMD has been leading the show for years. However, their manufacturing plants have not been as proficient as Intel's and, since they have fewer of them, they haven't been able to leave Intel in the dust like they should have years ago.
The Nehalem architecture is Intel's version of AMD's Hypertransport / true multicore platform that is now several years old. And despite what you may see on the web, AMD had been more power-efficient than Intel for a while.
Intel is retaking ALL those leads except, possibly, price / performance.

Reply Parent Score: 1