Back to Article

  • Hector2 - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - link

    This is certainly an interesting development. At face value, it implies that Global Foundaries has working ARM silicon at 28nm. As is everything, the devil is in the details.

    Is that fully functional ? Is leakage at 28nm sufficiently low to be sustainable in the long run ? or are short channel effects bad enough to require major additional development to correct ? How does GF's definition of 28nm channel length compare to Intel's definition at 22nm -- which apparently is how thin the FinFETs are ?

    I read a few days ago that Intel has 14nm FinFETs working in the lab now. Does "working at 14nm" at Intel an equivalent milestone to GF's "28nm operating at 2.8GHz" ? Only time will tell.
  • retrospooty - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    I am wondering how these newer 2+ghz chips do in real world performance. How much faster are things vs' todays 1-1.2ghz chips, is it noticeable, or are we at the point of diminishing returns. Reply
  • Hector2 - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    It's about power & die cost, too. Intel's new 22nm FinFET transistors are not only faster but smaller as well -- so cheaper to make. Much more impressive, though, is that the new transistors are ultra effiicient with leakage power and offers a 20X improvement over their 32nm process. That translates directly to much longer battery life for ultramobile devices. Reply
  • retrospooty - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    Yup... thats kind of why I want to see if there is any performance gains... I could see these clocked lower and being extremely miserly on the juice. Reply
  • shriganesh - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    I bet Rory Read and AMD must be banging their heads to move away from GloFo!!! Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    Not really. This isn't quite the same as actual mass production at 28nm like TSMC are doing right now. Reply
  • haukionkannel - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    Yep. GloFo 32 nm and 28 nm production is not the same. Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    I was referring to the fact that this is a 28nm demo, whereas TSMC are mass producing 28nm chips. GF's inability to keep up with TSMC is more than just yields, it's process as well. Reply
  • Mugur - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    No, just bang the heads of GF people for not being able to make a good 32nm process for their FX... Reply
  • fteoath64 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - link

    "not being able to make a good 32nm process for their FX... " What ?. Releasing a 3.6Ghz stock chip @32nm is very good progress. It is just unfortunate that AMD did not optimize the micro-architecture of BullDozer for it. Hence, the overall performance duffers. I think using shared FPU is a bad idea. They had a lot of work to get the memory bandwidth up and the cache bandwidth to be comparable or better than i7.
    And considering the lower price of their CPUs, I would expect more dual socket boards to be out there. These seemed rare these days.
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    GF is a sinking ship and has been for years. They simply execute poorly. AMD would still be a quarterly loss company if the two were still one. Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    Exactly, AMD hedging their bets against GloFo's failures is the best thing they could've done, especially with their GPU business. GloFo is largely to blame for many of AMD's recent missteps, from Deccan and its chips being cancelled, to Bulldozer missing its target clocks. Imagine if AMD had tried to move their GPU business over as many suggested they do to cut down on costs? Now you hear about AMD moving even more of their high-end *CPU* designs to TSMC going forward.

    With this focus on simple ARM designs, GloFo is a step away from being relegated to producing low-margin RAM and flash......maybe they'll finally find a niche they're good at.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now