G
Greg
I got thinking about the impact to dual-core technology and whether
AMD has painted itself into a corner.
AMD wins points for the "coolness" factor of announcing the first x86
dual-core. They already won points for 64bit, not that it is useable
outside linux at this point. BUT... I wonder if this is the best
approach.
My concerns with dual-core:
1) Two CPU's aren't as efficient with the resources as one. Dualie
systems are only ~60% better performing over a single core.
Admittedly dual-core systems are different beasts here, but it is
certainly not going to be 2x performance.
2) Huge impact on the die per wafer yielded. In addition to fewer
available units, any defect that kills one of the dual CPUs will kill
the unit as a dual-core.
It is really (2) that bothers me, especially since we are talking
about going to mainstream desktop dual-core systems. Although AMD has
partnered with IBM and Chartered, the overall 300mm capacity for AMD
is significantly less than Intel which has 4 300mm fabs online now and
another in retro. Intel can bury AMD in silicon.
AMD has had better CPU designs, which has allowed it to gain
marketshare in mainstream and server space. I wonder why AMD did not
leverage their design teams to engineer a better solution than a
seeming "desperate" switch to dual-core. Doesn't this move play into
Intel's capacity advantage?
-Greg
AMD has painted itself into a corner.
AMD wins points for the "coolness" factor of announcing the first x86
dual-core. They already won points for 64bit, not that it is useable
outside linux at this point. BUT... I wonder if this is the best
approach.
My concerns with dual-core:
1) Two CPU's aren't as efficient with the resources as one. Dualie
systems are only ~60% better performing over a single core.
Admittedly dual-core systems are different beasts here, but it is
certainly not going to be 2x performance.
2) Huge impact on the die per wafer yielded. In addition to fewer
available units, any defect that kills one of the dual CPUs will kill
the unit as a dual-core.
It is really (2) that bothers me, especially since we are talking
about going to mainstream desktop dual-core systems. Although AMD has
partnered with IBM and Chartered, the overall 300mm capacity for AMD
is significantly less than Intel which has 4 300mm fabs online now and
another in retro. Intel can bury AMD in silicon.
AMD has had better CPU designs, which has allowed it to gain
marketshare in mainstream and server space. I wonder why AMD did not
leverage their design teams to engineer a better solution than a
seeming "desperate" switch to dual-core. Doesn't this move play into
Intel's capacity advantage?
-Greg