AMD server roadmap, 28nm in H2 2014

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by boxleitnerb, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. MisterMac

    MisterMac Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0

    ..but one has to admit they do it damn well.


    It's a pretty big ass machine that regulates and adapts itself to whatever the hell the situation is.
     
  2. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are referred to as the borg, and not in a flattering way.

    There is a reason they are responsible for 20% of S Korea's national GDP :eek: You don't get there by being Unicef :D
     
  3. bononos

    bononos Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,207
    Likes Received:
    8
    Maybe the large foreign ownership (1/2) of Samsung had something to do with it.
     
  4. Chiropteran

    Chiropteran Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    1
    Really? Are there articles on this out there, anything substantial? I just don't see why Samsung would need to copy or clone Apple phones when Motorola, HTC, LG etc all seemed to be able to figure out how to make similar phones without the benefit of being an Apple foundry.

    I get that Apple might want to take it's business elsewhere once Samsung starts seriously competing with them in the phone business, but the idea that Samsung just flat out copies the designs which they saw as a benefit of being a foundry sounds a little too extreme to me.
     
  5. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds extreme? Ah, ok. Samsung has never had issues with abdicating ethics in the name of profits.

    CRT price fixing
    Dram price fixing
    LCD price fixing

    As far as the comment "flat out copies designs", I did not say that is what they do. The "copy" is that they know in advance what the competition is intending to field in the market based on negotiations going on in the foundry. These are huge divisions and there are no secrets between them.

    They copy business strategies, they copy market directions, etc.

    That is why TSMC is a successful foundry unlike IBM or Samsung where the conflict of interest is not only a risk, with Samsung it is a clear and present danger for their fabless customers.
     
  6. mrmt

    mrmt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apple phones are just the tip of the iceberg. Look at cars, ships, TVs, in every single case here they copied the entire product strategy of the market leaders while undercutting them on price but never something truly innovative, then after a while when the business gain scale they start to field something barely innovative but never a breakthrough. It was like that with Sony TVs and home theaters, Toyota cars, GE appliances, Mitsubishi ships, Lockheed Martin planes and whatever you look.

    They don't excel for innovate, they excel in manufacturing. They have very efficient fabs in whatever product they make, plus a government that piratically tailors the school curriculum for them and ensures that their business will always have funding and provides a cheap currency to boost their exports.

    I won't enter in a moral argument here because I don't think this is the right forum for that, but one has to be blind to not see Samsung cloning products in almost every market they are in.
     
  7. MisterMac

    MisterMac Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0

    One could wonder how this would work - if china ever got a Semi IC manufacturing powerhouse or other more deeply hardcore electronic business giants on the world scene.

    I often see Samsung as a small scale version of what would happen - if China companies grew so large and had such presence in various key-business areas in the world of IT\Electronics\Technology.
     
  8. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Counterfeit ICs is a huge business and a huge issue. China is already a Semi-IC powerhouse, just not the kind that you'd recognize at first glance because you are expecting that powerhouse to be sporting its own brand-name instead of sporting counterfeit brand names on the silkscreen.
     
  9. MisterMac

    MisterMac Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well, they still also do not supply premium performance IC products.
    End user or not.

    When i get product with the powerhouse perf\watt\price - we know from the western world, it'd be a problem.

    In the fashion industry - china already manufacturers most of the worlds supply.

    And the manufacturer obviously makes some copies for himself - even if the brand name is not the product.

    From our "technical" perspective the product is 100% the same - that can't be said for electronics....yet.

    ...or can it?
     
  10. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,153
    Likes Received:
    39
    Alot of chinese only products that are "western copy" are actually better than the western part.
     
  11. podspi

    podspi Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,880
    Likes Received:
    1
    Such as? Because all of the Chinese knockoffs that you can buy off of eBay or Alibaba are definitely not better... And I find it hard to believe they would sell the junk but not the good stuff...
     
  12. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,153
    Likes Received:
    39
    Its not really that hard to imagine. The BOM for most 600$ smartphones are less than 200$. Now copy the design and up some specs for a 225$ BOM where the other makers cheaped out. And bingo, you got something better you can sell for 300$.

    If specially smartphone companies wasnt so extremely greedy (that most western consumers somehow accepts.). It wouldnt be so easy to beat them in their own game. And then you would see knockoffs being alot worse. But when the difference between BOM and retail price is so high, you often end up with the opposite effect.
     
    #62 ShintaiDK, Dec 6, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  13. pablo87

    pablo87 Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anybody who has dealt with Samsung.........but they sure build great product.

    my South Korean contact once told me Samsung's internal security service was more plugged in than the government's...unfortunately that will remain a rumour as I haven't been able to verify this with my North Korean contact because....I don't have one.
     
  14. MisterMac

    MisterMac Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are the same - thus cannot be better.


    The technical specifications are the same, only the logo is ripped of.
    Hence they are neither worse, nor better - when talking Textile industry.

    You won't see a samsung\apple\LG\sony copied phone - have the exact same internal specs and performance as the original with electronics...yet.


    Once that day comes...
     
  15. Blandge

    Blandge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true, this happened to Cisco.
     
  16. MisterMac

    MisterMac Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huawei?
     
  17. Ajay

    Ajay Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    1
  18. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,153
    Likes Received:
    39
    Cisco is another company that never learned to deal with competition of any kind. Overpriced equipment and expensive poor support while living with an outdated mindset. Not to mention they got beaten so badly on the 4G/LTE network they had to use lobbyists.

    [​IMG]
     
    #68 ShintaiDK, Dec 6, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  19. Cookie Monster

    Cookie Monster Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    6
    The problem with this is that "Samsung" could be replaced with just about any big names in the industry today, including Intel (and from other industries not just semiconductor). So Im kind of surprised that your singling them out especially when the basis of the reasoning was highlighted by their "price fixing" scandal.. which involved more than one party. I dont blame them (the parties involved) either seeing as how dried up some of the above markets are/were e.g. the DRAM market.
     
  20. Av9114

    Av9114 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thing that confuses me is given how capital intensive semiconductor manufacturing is, why isn't Samsung more concerned about idle fabs? Do they just assume that they'll be able to fill them with their own designs? Seems like they risk sinking the whole ship, no?
     
  21. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    The people who manage the semiconductor division are concerned, the people who manage the consumer products division not so much.

    This is the problem with having a large company that has competing internal interests. Not only does the left hand not communicate with the right hand, on occasions they are undermining each other's stated business charter.

    Consider Samsung's legal dept, suing your own foundry customer is not good business from the foundry perspective, but it is good business for the legal dept and they have to justify their budget and headcount...so they file lawsuits and keep their own jobs at the expense of the jobs that are surely going to be lost in the foundry division when the customers leave.

    The same is true of the mobile products division. You don't compete with your customers, you can try but you quickly find out that your customer is no longer your customer, they go to your competitor to be better enabled to compete against you in the future.

    It is one big huge conflict of interest, which is why Samsung as a foundry has struggled ever since the business unit was created. And it will continue to be like that because it is a culture thing that will never change, no one can trust the samsung foundry even if the foundry wants to be trustworthy it has no control over what the other business units do to its customer's products or with its customer's sensitive roadmap information.
     
  22. Arzachel

    Arzachel Senior member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll have to call bullshit on this, at least in the smartphone business. Specs have pretty much always been irrelevant when competing with Apple, what Samsung did was actually "out-Apple" Apple. They pushed their Galaxy branding with their "S" line of phones (iPhone), they pushed large screens as something desirable (Retina) and both paid off immensely, to which Apple had pretty much no answer to because they were so used to things running their way. Samsung has taken a lot out of Apple's playbook, which ironically has lead them to become pretty much the most innovative smartphone manufacturer in the market since Apple released the first iPhone, but their tech isn't it.
     
  23. podspi

    podspi Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,880
    Likes Received:
    1
    Samsung isn't Foxconn. I would argue that Samsung did not steal tech from Apple, but probably Apple paid for a lot of tech from Samsung.

    What Samsung did steal from Apple are a lot of design cues. While I don't agree with being able to patent a rectangle, I think it is obvious to anybody who isn't biased against Apple to see that (and I do not like Apple). Even their current products remind me of the iPhone, with the distinctive middle home button. But none of this has anything to do with being a foundry. You don't have to fab an SoC to look at the shape of a product, or button placement, or icon design language, which is (if I understand correctly) what the lawsuit was about.

    The danger of having a competitor fab your next-gen SoC is that they see you've added 3x the GPU capacity, and so you turn around and change your plans to include 4x the GPU capacity (or whatever). There are ways to firewall one segment of a business from another to prevent that kind of information leaking between departments, and given Apple's obsession about secrecy I would imagine provisions for such containment were included in the contract. Make no mistake, this is tit-for-tat. Unlike Samsung, Apple holds a grudge. Once they got into a huge legal battle, there was no way they would continue being Samsung's customer, even if it was their best choice.

    For more Apple choices like this one, see the replacement of Google Maps.
     
  24. mrmt

    mrmt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, you are calling bullshit while saying *exactly* the same thing I wrote in the first paragraph.
     
  25. Av9114

    Av9114 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally understand that. Samsung has a somewhat weird business model in general. Traditionally, when you vertically integrate you don't also sell to your competitors. The difference is that Samsung started as a supplier whereas historically companies that end up vertically integrated start out at the top or bottom of that stack and build down or up respectively. But it seems hard to imagine Samsung not eventually having to be a more traditional vertically integrated company and stop supplying to others. Thoughts?
     
Loading...