• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why don't AMD do a Rockchip?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I've asked that question myself many times. But it seems the GLF process must be very broken. AFAIK both console APUs are made at TSMC and they would be perfect to fulfill the WSA.
 
beginner99 said:
I've asked that question myself many times. But it seems the GLF process must be very broken. AFAIK both console APUs are made at TSMC and they would be perfect to fulfill the WSA.
Click to expand...

Globalfoundies might get there, eventually. They are building a fab and they are starting to bring the kind of expertise that always lacked at AMD: Process R&D.

Qualcomm is testing the foundry, and they are slowly getting 28nm customers. But I don't think they are in the point of being a mainstay supplier of one of the big names of the industry. Sony and Microsoft sure wouldn't want a foundry with that track record being their main supplier of chips as big as the console chips.
 
mrmt said:
Globalfoundies might get there, eventually. They are building a fab and they are starting to bring the kind of expertise that always lacked at AMD: Process R&D.

Qualcomm is testing the foundry, and they are slowly getting 28nm customers. But I don't think they are in the point of being a mainstay supplier of one of the big names of the industry. Sony and Microsoft sure wouldn't want a foundry with that track record being their main supplier of chips as big as the console chips.
Click to expand...

GloFo were the fab for Microsoft's final 360 revision, so it's not like they haven't used them before.
 
mrmt said:
If you read AMD annual report you'll see that the WSA just binds AMD orders to Globalfoundries, but if Globalfoundries slips this is AMD's problem. Globalfoundries is not liable to anything. AMD goes as far as mentioning that if ATIC stops funding GLF, they will have problems and there's nothing they can do about it.

It was not an agreement of equals to strenght their business, but an agreement between a rich fund and an almost bankrupt company to safeguard the former's investment and save the latter's.
Click to expand...

AMD would have a decent case for not paying for wafers GF can't provide. Forcing the issue would anger a big influential shareholder, though.
 
Vesku said:
AMD would have a decent case for not paying for wafers GF can't provide. Forcing the issue would anger a big influential shareholder, though.
Click to expand...

A case for what? They are legally bind by the contract. And its a one way deal AMD signed themselves.
 
ShintaiDK said:
A case for what? They are legally bind by the contract. And its a one way deal AMD signed themselves.
Click to expand...

Case under US law, if you contract to buy 10000 apples but the supplier only has 5000 apples to provide under the contract you have a great case to not pay for the 5000 undelivered apples.

If AMD ordered up the WSA required level of wafers but GF could not deliver them, even at terrible yields, AMD could negotiate alternatives on stronger terms.

AMD has no management incentive to build such a case though as it would very likely upset Mubadala:

Mubadala Development Co. extended its stake in AMD to about 19 percent including warrants and took an extra board seat last month (Nov 2012)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...dala-investment-eases-liquidity-concerns.html
 
NTMBK said:
Oh right 😛 No, no deal. I don't make random guesses about chip performance, I wait for the data. Normally benchmarks, though in this case I guess sales figures.
Click to expand...

oh, too bad. I was willing to let you pick the brand :whiste:

Vesku said:
AMD would have a decent case for not paying for wafers GF can't provide. Forcing the issue would anger a big influential shareholder, though.
Click to expand...

That's where you can see the deal wasn't a good one for AMD. From the risk disclosure in AMD annual report Globalfoundries isn't liable to anything. If yields are down, AMD has to swallow. If they are unable to provide a new node, AMD has to swallow. If ATIC cut funding to AMD, they have to go to the negotiating table to settle the problem. AMD essentially has to do with what GLF has to offer and that's it.

But what if AMD wanted to fight Globalfoundries? Well, nothing good would come out of this. GLF controls AMD production, prices, yields, volumes of wafers available. They could just hit AMD in any way they want. On top of that Globalfoundries has been postponing a lot of payments and being flexible with WSA commitments, a behavior that would change if AMD were to pursue a litigation and AMD balance sheet just isn't strong enough to support this fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top