Puff

http://globalfoundries.com/newsroom/press-releases/2014/04/17/samsung-and-globalfoundries-forge-strategic-collaboration-to-deliver-multi-sourced-offering-of-14nm-finfet-semiconductor-technology

Good News: AMD can now access to a far larger fab cap. Lower biz risk.

<crap-alert>
Maybe QC is right about AMD being power-efficient craze, as it seems no process in the pipeline will allow AMD to build speedy stuff like BD in the future again. The industry is transforming towards MOARRR LOW POWER either. I am still hoping for a nice big x86 core, tho. Moderate frequency (up to 3?) to target notebooks, EE mid- to high-end servers, "good enough" gaming desktops and down to some cheap dual-core SoCs for premium Win tabs and ITX/HTPCs. ...well, this sounds like an i3/i5 plus Cyclone hybrid clone but with strong integrated graphics.



[ 本帖最後由 Puff 於 2014-4-19 01:12 編輯 ]

Puff

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2014-4-19 07:36 發表

Samsung's 14nm may not be as bad as you would think
2.5-3GHz high-end CPUs are doable.

yeah that's what I think. perf/watt optimized big core, running up to 3-3.5 Ghz on mainstream to gaming desktops and perf notebooks (turbo). considering that BCOM claimed 3 Ghz for their 16FF Vulcan core, 14nm from *** shouldn't be worse than that. No more 4Ghz thingy in the foreseeable future.

But it is still uncertain if AMD still commits to regain victory in the x86 field.


[ 本帖最後由 Puff 於 2014-4-19 14:02 編輯 ]

Puff

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2014-4-19 15:56 發表

If AMD is really willing to roll out Perf/Watt optimized core, I think there are still chance for AMD on par with Intel and get some marketshare back, and not to bore Intel anymore.

on par with/competitive with Intel in the mid-end PC (i5), while those high-clocked i7... em...
Nonetheless this is enough, even for gaming (hello DX12), if they CAN pair these cores with a strong integrated graphics AND hetero-computing gains mainstream adoption. The story of servers is a bit different tho, which depends more on their memory hierarchy performance (w/ NUMA).


[ 本帖最後由 Puff 於 2014-4-19 16:17 編輯 ]

Puff

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2014-4-19 16:17 發表

No...

Most important is still CPU performance and performance / watt.

single-thread or multi-thread?

[ 本帖最後由 Puff 於 2014-4-19 16:22 編輯 ]

Puff

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2014-4-19 16:21 發表

For server, multi-thread
For workstation, single-thread

Single-thread is already nice if it is on par with an i5. i7 is just scaling the frequency further.
Multi-thread depends on the scale of the chip. you can add as many cores as you want, but the problem, particularly with AMD when you look at BD's NUMA scaling, is the memory hierarchy performance.



p.s. oh, sorry for late edit.

Puff

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2014-4-19 16:31 發表

For server, performance / power is important because the price of a rack differs with different power consumption

then an array of no-so-highly-clocked but strong cores should fit this purpose well. what is described here is more or less the same as what Intel is offering today, just without the super high turbo frequency (3.5+). hetero-computing may improve perf/watt either if you wanna count.

Puff

S|A 話佢地要做對方 second source 係因為想搶 QCOM 同 AAPL 更多大單
尤其係 AAPL