Information Week is reporting that processor-giant AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) is planning to begin shipping 32nm chips next year, in 2010.The word comes from AMD's Chief Executive Dirk Meyer, stating that volume production of the chips will begin next year in the fourth quarter. This seems odd, as AMD's rivel Intel is beginning production of 32nm chips this year, again in the fourth quarter, leaving AMD an unfortunate year behind. They will be producing three chips, code named Congo, Nile, and Ontario, which will be a follow-on from their Yukon series, which was aimed at notebooks.
Another interesting point is regarding AMD's acquisition of graphics-producer ATi a while back. Meyer states that, although the buy-out of the GPU maker left AMD in a state of financial woe (2008's Q4 gave AMD a $1.4B loss), he expects it to begin paying off soon, and that owning ATi will give them an advantage in the notebook market. He justifies this by saying while Intel's notebook chips are faster, AMD will come off on top because, when coupled with ATi technology, their computers deliver better graphics and video.
No word yet on what the new AMD processors will be in terms of specifications, but it's still quite a way away, so one can't expect much so far.
Jumping to 8 core without shrinking the transistor size would make the processor size DOUBLED than 4 core CPU.. This simply DOUBLE the price of the chip, at least, not considering lesser yield produced from a bigger processor die size (it's more difficult to produce a large defect free chip).... If everything factors in, AMD can produce 8 core CPU now, but the price would be 3 - 4 times more expensive than quad core..
Would you buy it??
They would also be smart to make a good go at the netbook/low power computing market, coming in with something of an Nvidia Ion platform of their own, since that sector is on the up-and-up given the collapse of the global economy.
Intel has a R&D budget that is bigger than AMD entirely, there is really nothing that AMD can do, except grabbing a niche cheap, OEM market.
Westmere (The 32nm shrink of Nehalem, the current i7's) is due this year. If AMD is saying Q4 2010 for 32nm, that puts them about a year behind.
There isn't the usual razor-sharp focus. i7 is impressive, but it has that "it might be a near dead-end, like Socket 940 Athlon 64FX parts" vibe. But at the same time, the LGA775 parts are stagnant. If I want a system with an upgrade path, Intel doesn't really have a good answer. Perhaps when i5 comes out, it will solve it, but right now, AMD has a very attractive argument in that the Phenom/Phenom II you buy today, you can yank it out and put in forthcoming AM3 chips tomorrow.
There isn't the usual razor-sharp focus. i7 is impressive, but it has that "it might be a near dead-end, like Socket 940 Athlon 64FX parts" vibe. But at the same time, the LGA775 parts are stagnant. If I want a system with an upgrade path, Intel doesn't really have a good answer. Perhaps when i5 comes out, it will solve it, but right now, AMD has a very attractive argument in that the Phenom/Phenom II you buy today, you can yank it out and put in forthcoming AM3 chips tomorrow.
Exactly why i stick with them.
only if you bought a mobo with a 790 chipset. thats how i got screwed over from upgrading to the phenom II.
I never knew that the Yukon was a province of Canada. I am such an a$$hole.
While not exactly the answer to the OP, I find it interesting.
just asking
we all do
Core 2 LGA775 (2006) > i7 LGA1336 (200
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 AM2 HT2 DDR2 (2006) > Phenom AM2+ HT3 DDR2 (2007) > Phenom II AM3 HT3 DDR2/DDR3 (2009)
basicly if you got a Phenom II, you can put it into a AM2 Board from 2006, if it has TDP and BIOS support
same is with servers you can soon upgrade from 24core HT2 Socket F chips to 6 core istanbul socket f chips and get like sweet performance without changing anything else
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16448
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D11uY5dOE2c
and Intels QPI is just a copy of AMD's HyperTransport from 2003
much like EMT64 = AMD64
intel is just 5 years late :p
not mentioning Amd was mostly forced to make there own interface since the mostly ol' FSB belong to intel
and it would be crazy to have different x64 extension or else MS and other companies would have created to edition of there softwares
Vista 64 EMT64 edition
vista 64 AMD64 edition
now can you imagine that!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.