TSMC to make AMD processors Q2/2009 (Rumor Mill)

[nyker96]

Linky:http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c..._Devices__Rumours.html

 

[Idontcare]

Citing ?foreign institutional investors?, China Economic News Service reported that AMD and TSMC had reached an agreement...

Wait they got China news service reporting that vaguely described foreign investors stated TSMC is making AMD CPU's in 2009?

:shocked:

Say no more, it doesn't come from more credible sources than this. Even if it came straight from AMD's own press division I would be less inclined to believe it than I currently am inclined to believe it from this bevy of reputable sources...

:roll:

 

[nyker96]

It's called believe it or NOT. You have to make up your own mind on this one. My take it AMD is engaging in busy talks even if it is not with TSMC although I would think they might go to IBM since rumor has it they have 32nm worked out already.

But just because it came outta China news not mean it's definitely not true. If you browse around some cpu samples gets into Taiwan/China sometimes European reviewer's hands before they do here. So you see many such preliminary reviews show up there 1st.

 

[Idontcare]

I'm not making disparaging remarks about Chinese news agencies, what kind of point would I be making if that was my agenda?

My comments were in regards to the likelihood of foreign investors electing to leak internal info to the Chinese press of all the high-profile press groups around the world to leak such info to.

Given the purpose of any and all leaks (market manipulation) it would seem like the savvy foreign investor would leak the info to an agency likely to make a little more noise about it than the Chinese new agency. Say the Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten (local Dresden newspaper) or the Wall Street Journal or the Taipei Times.

So when I add it up in this regard I smell a fabricated news story by a freelance journalist attempting to make monthly rent. What better way to fabricate your story than to reference an unconfirmable news source and anonymous loose-lipped foreign investors?

At any rate what we should be talking about is how does this effect us if it is true? Change is progress, and AMD needs progress.

I see nothing negative here if it is true, except perhaps for those hardworking AMD employees who are going to have their job functions transferred to hardworking Taiwan employees. We all like change provided it is happening to our neighbors and not to ourselves.

 

[firewolfsm]

What are the actual benefits of fabbing yourselves? I doubt it's cost effective even in the long run as the cost of updating facilities for newer processes is a constant expense.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
What are the actual benefits of fabbing yourselves? I doubt it's cost effective even in the long run as the cost of updating facilities for newer processes is a constant expense.

Same in any business really, the question is what are the benefits of out-sourcing versus doing it in-house. Business degrees of separation.

For some businesses they couldn't survive if it weren't for outsourcing, for others they only survive because they don't outsource. Execution and success in either environment comes down to management and talent.

For example SUN microsystems felt their expertise was best utilized in managing chip design teams and a foundry relationship with Texas Instruments. Nvidia same thing, outsourced manufacturing their GPU's to TSMC. Same for ATi.

AMD (and Intel, IBM, etc) felt their management talents were deep enough that they could effectively manage the design teams and the manufacturing teams in such a way that the synergy that comes with having zero degrees of separation between the two outweighed the less than optimal management skills at the top.

Those synergies are usually time-to-market and optimization for yields and speedbins in a more dynamic and faster cadence environment. Not to mention the ability to execute forecasting and fab utilization more rapidly.

 

[myocardia]

Honestly, I don't see this as a big deal, even if it happens to be true. AMD can only outsource up to 15% (or is it 20%?) of their CPU's, or they're in violation of their x86 agreement, uh, court ruling.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Honestly, I don't see this as a big deal, even if it happens to be true. AMD can only outsource up to 15% (or is it 20%?) of their CPU's, or they're in violation of their x86 agreement, uh, court ruling.

I read (long ago, Viditor has the specific docs and links) that it was stated that AMD's manufacturing facitilies must produce >50% (i.e. at least 50.1%, etc) of AMD's x86 processors.

The difficulty here is understanding just how the contract restricts what 50% is produced by AMD and what 50% is produced elsewhere.

For example let's say AMD outsources 100% of 45nm and beyond production to TSMC or sells its own fabs to do the same. But they keep some low-volume production facility somewhere (not necessarily the modern dresden fabs) to produce 65nm versions of their smallest x86 CPU they can think of (say a 1mm^2 286 processor or some such).

This way they pack some 50,000 x86 processors onto a single wafer...and they aren't exactly aiming for these to be functional, zero yield is OK. They "process" enough wafers such that they are producing just a handful more of these small processors than they are pulling 45nm valuable processors out of TSMC (or their own spun-off fabs).

Now they attempt to sell all their processors, but odds are that the 65nm 286 processors (65nm just for sake of making them super tiny so not many wafers or toolsets or fabspace is necessary) won't sell at all because they price them at $1k per CPU (functional or not, that isn't warrantied or guaranteed, zero yield is still sellable CPU's). And just write off the quarterly inventory as losses for tax-breaks.

Thus they spin off their fabs, or outsource to TSMC, kill the R&D expense of new node development, essentially go fabless but meet their Intel contract by "producing" more than 50% of their total CPU count in-house.

Ethical? No. Ethical enough for Business? Hellz Yeah.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
For example let's say AMD outsources 100% of 45nm and beyond production to TSMC or sells its own fabs to do the same. But they keep some low-volume production facility somewhere (not necessarily the modern dresden fabs) to produce 65nm versions of their smallest x86 CPU they can think of (say a 1mm^2 286 processor or some such).

Thus they spin off their fabs, or outsource to TSMC, kill the R&D expense of new node development, essentially go fabless but meet their Intel contract by "producing" more than 50% of their total CPU count in-house.

Ethical? No. Ethical enough for Business? Hellz Yeah.

Hmm, I'm not arguing with you, but I've read multiple places (that are actually quasi-creditable) that it was either 15 or 20% of their "output". If it's only >50%, it puts things in a whole new light. Your idea that I quoted above is utter brilliance, BTW. I wonder if Dirk Meyer already thought of that?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Idontcare
For example let's say AMD outsources 100% of 45nm and beyond production to TSMC or sells its own fabs to do the same. But they keep some low-volume production facility somewhere (not necessarily the modern dresden fabs) to produce 65nm versions of their smallest x86 CPU they can think of (say a 1mm^2 286 processor or some such).

Thus they spin off their fabs, or outsource to TSMC, kill the R&D expense of new node development, essentially go fabless but meet their Intel contract by "producing" more than 50% of their total CPU count in-house.

Ethical? No. Ethical enough for Business? Hellz Yeah.

Hmm, I'm not arguing with you, but I've read multiple places (that are actually quasi-creditable) that it was either 15 or 20% of their "output". If it's only >50%, it puts things in a whole new light. Your idea that I quoted above is utter brilliance, BTW. I wonder if Dirk Meyer already thought of that?

I'm inclined to believe you on the 15-20% over my fuzzy recollection of having read something somewhere that stated 50%. Definitely narrows the field of options when you have to do 80+% of it in-house.

My rule of thumb when it comes to my ideas is that if I can think it up then it must be so obvious that it was considered and discarded many years years ago for reasons that would be clear if explained to me but I won't likely realize them on my own. There's a lot of smart cookies out there in the world and a bunch of them work at AMD.

 

[soccerballtux]

I found some tidbits when googling that were saying it was 20%.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I'm inclined to believe you on the 15-20% over my fuzzy recollection of having read something somewhere that stated 50%. Definitely narrows the field of options when you have to do 80+% of it in-house.

Well, it seems that the judgement we were referring to has been superseded by an an actual contract between the two companies. I just found that, so I'll read it, and see what I can dig up.

My rule of thumb when it comes to my ideas is that if I can think it up then it must be so obvious that it was considered and discarded many years years ago for reasons that would be clear if explained to me but I won't likely realize them on my own. There's a lot of smart cookies out there in the world and a bunch of them work at AMD.

Give me a break. You are not only one of the most knowledgeable people around here, you're also one of the smartest. Then again, humility is a virtue, at least in my opinion.


edit: Okay, that cross-licensing agreement isn't what I was trying to find. Believe it or not, none of the words "x86", or "CPU" are included anywhere in that document.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I'm inclined to believe you on the 15-20% over my fuzzy recollection of having read something somewhere that stated 50%. Definitely narrows the field of options when you have to do 80+% of it in-house.

Well, it seems that the judgement we were referring to has been superseded by an an actual contract between the two companies. I just found that, so I'll read it, and see what I can dig up.

My rule of thumb when it comes to my ideas is that if I can think it up then it must be so obvious that it was considered and discarded many years years ago for reasons that would be clear if explained to me but I won't likely realize them on my own. There's a lot of smart cookies out there in the world and a bunch of them work at AMD.

Give me a break. You are not only one of the most knowledgeable people around here, you're also one of the smartest. Then again, humility is a virtue, at least in my opinion.

I ran across this earlier, don't think it applies. That's for cross licensing of tech, so that AMD and Intel can't shut each other out of the processor market with litigation. For example, EM64T is a clone of, and would infringe on, x86-64 patents.

edit: ah, you beat me to it.

 

[myocardia]

Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this exhibit. The
copy filed herewith omits the information subject to the confidentiality
request. Omissions are designated as *****. A complete version of this exhibit
has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Well no wonder there's no actual information in that agreement. It's obviously a national secret.

edit: I'm going to guess that it's actually 20%, since that's what everyone else on the planet thinks it is, even though not one of them ever include a link. Maybe AMD asked the sites that actually wrote articles about it to take them down, after some of us read them?