Phynaz
Lifer
- Mar 13, 2006
- 10,140
- 819
- 126
AMD s entire RD is at most 300m/quarter
And it shows. I don't see AMD producing anything like what Intel has in development.
AMD s entire RD is at most 300m/quarter
The big problem is that if Intel needs to spend 1B every Quarter or approximately 4B per year for R&D and MG&A in the mobile segment, they will have to generate more than double the amount in Revenue from that group alone in order to make a profit.
That means that, if they will sell each SoC at $25 and earn $10, then they will need to sell 400 million SoCs per year just to get even. And that is with 40% margins, they will need to lower that in order to sell that high Volume. So you see that seams far too fetched to become real even with Intel's deep pockets.
They really need to change their business plan and how they operate in order to be competitive in the Mobile market.
And it shows. I don't see AMD producing anything like what Intel has in development.
Really? I think if anyone is showing poor execution and development it's intel. AMD crushes them on graphics and low power chips all while being a process node behind, without finfets. It takes 14nm finfets to match AMD's 28nm silicon? That doesn't sound too good to me.
And BTW, your slight of hand isn't really fooling anyone... "I don't see AMD producing anything like what intel has in development." How about AMD beating products that intel is producing?
You could just as well fit a Haswell-Y into a bulky 11.6'' reference platform and brag about it being faster than Bay Trail (which can be found in lots of small/light/thin 7-10'' tablets right now). There's no power numbers and no tablets for sale yet (AMD expects designs ''over the next 2 quarters''), until a recognized OEM ships an actual competitive tablet based on one of this new chips all they have is another PowerPoint winner. That's already better than last year's A4-1200 crap though.
Speaking of Haswell, the 2.8W Micro 6700T beats that thing, in graphics, too! That's incredible.
And it shows. I don't see AMD producing anything like what Intel has in development.
AMD s entire RD is at most 300m/quarter , how much do you think BT current RD need considering this number.?..
You mean this? Barely matches one of the slowest Core i3, and of course no CPU numbers (and no CPU/iGPU numbers from the i5 model) to hide their disadvantage. The fact that they are comparing this specific chip to Haswell-Y kinda makes you wonder about the real power numbers and market they are targetting (>11.6'' tablets). Their own slide implies that Bay Trail-T's direct competitors should be the A4-6400T and E1-6200T, with much lower CPU/iGPU clocks than the fastest model that AMD sent for testing (Dual-core 1.4GHz / Quad-core 1.6GHz with 300-350MHz iGPUs vs Quad-core 2.2GHz + 500MHz iGPU). Their single-thread CPU advantage will be gone and their graphics performance advantange will be severely reduced thanks to lower clocks.
So quoting only part of my post just to elude the question and change the goal post through some kind of rethoric.?..
Here the post again :
From thoses numbers AMD s small APUs line RD cost is hardly 100m/quarter so it is obvious that out of the 929m Intel lost on BT 150m at most are RD with 50m for management, 100m for the free chips and 600m subsides, that is about 700m poured in subsides for a 5m chips shippement , 140$ per chip shipped including the chip total rebate.
Now you can always insist that it s 929m in RD....:biggrin:
So you are saying Intel outright lied in their investor call. You should call the SEC. The rest of us will ignore your made up numbers.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089421/how-intel-is-buying-a-piece-of-the-tablet-market.htmlThe bill of materials cost for a Broxton tablet will be $20 less than for Bay Trail, Krzanich said. SoFIA, with its greater integration and smaller die size, will cost even less, he said.
They can say what they want but if AMD whole quarterly RD is 300m i guess that they ll have trouble explaining that they need 700m in the same time for a product ouperformed by a couterpart that was granted 100m at most.
What mobile device is AMD releasing in three years that will out perform Intel's mobile device?
Will it have an integrated LTE modem?
Seriously, you like AMD and hate Intel. We get it. But making up false numbers doesn't make any case for you, it does just the opposite.
Who says they need to spend this every quarter? I'll bet the R&D spending is front loaded.
Finally, so what if they have to sell 400M a year? There were 8B ARM devices sold last year. So they need 5% market share to break even, big deal.
A tablet chip with a 2.8W SDP matching a core i3 Haswell sure does put things in perspective. This came out of nowhere, blowing away expectations. That Skin Temperature Aware Power Management is brilliant, integrating ARM PSP, etc. I want one. Samsung and Lenova are preparing designs with much more to come.
Same microarchitecture and no new process node means the same efficiency. Since Jaguar was already considerably worse than Silvermont, I don't see how Puma is going to meaningfully improve performance. Your 4.5W chip now uses some fancy boost mode to enable higher clock speeds that would otherwise require a 15W+ TDP for Jaguar SKUs, while Silvermont keeps using the same ~2.5W, which is a lot lower with higher clocks, more cores and no throttling. Nice marketing trick, that Qualcomm also uses, but that doesn't really change anything in terms of actual performance (per watt, i.e. sustained performance).
Same microarchitecture and no new process node means the same efficiency. Since Jaguar was already considerably worse than Silvermont, I don't see how Puma is going to meaningfully improve performance. Your 4.5W chip now uses some fancy boost mode to enable higher clock speeds that would otherwise require a 15W+ TDP for Jaguar SKUs, while Silvermont keeps using the same ~2.5W, which is a lot lower with higher clocks, more cores and no throttling. Nice marketing trick, that Qualcomm also uses, but that doesn't really change anything in terms of actual performance (per watt, i.e. sustained performance).
Those are necessary changes for tablet chips, and as Anand showed, idle power still isn't as good as other SoCs like the Snapdragon 600.Mullins has moved to GlobalFoundries' gate first 28nm process, while Temash was on TSMC's gate last 28nm process. Puma has been tweaked to reduce leakage- AMD claims 19% leakage reduction. And it now supports lower voltage DDR3L memory, which is more suited to tablets than the standard DDR3 memory used by Temash.
Turbo is great, but I'm very skeptical about it in mobile parts, where companies like Qualcomm only mention "2.5GHz clock speed!!" But in practice, a Snapdragon 800 clocks back to 0.5GHz within a ridiculously short time.And I don't understand why you're disparaging Turbo- turbo core is an essential way to balance single threaded performance, multithreaded performance and power consumption in a power constrained environment. Intel was a pioneer in turbo technology, and Temash/Kabini's awful Turbo was one of its main problems.
Exactly, I'm waiting for a review to see if AMD really succeeded in doubling the clock speed, cache size and core count while halving TDP (A4-1250 vs A10 Micro-6700T), meaning an octupling in efficiency. I think not.Anyway, as always, we should wait for some independently verified measurements before we get too carried away with the arguments.
I'm not saying that AMD is cheating. Quadcore Silvermont uses ~2.5W with all cores at 2.4GHz. Silvermont doesn't need to clock back like other SoCs, and Intel mentions both turbo and stock frequencies. So I'm wondering how much real performance increase we'll get. Since there are not a lot of improvement except for leakage, I don't think they'll be as big as AMD is promising, based on core count, frequency TDP improvements of the new SKUs.Wasn't BT first to share TDP across the chip? Boost CPU when IGP is idle, and vice versa. AMD was called out for not using boost and being slower in single threaded tasks, because chip was running at stock freq.
Here comes AMD with better boost and suddenly it is cheating, faking etc.
Those are necessary changes for tablet chips, and as Anand showed, idle power still isn't as good as other SoCs like the Snapdragon 600.
Quadcore Silvermont uses ~2.5W with all cores at 2.4GHz.