I don't think it's quite the same with GPU's or CPU's. The problem with the NAND chips that were produced by different foundries is that the specs (i.e. speeds) turned out different as a result. If the same GPU was being fab'd at two different foundries, they would either perform exactly the same or the clocks would be different. If the clocks were different, it would be very obvious - and changing the clocks have always meant a different class of product, so it would be unthinkable for AMD to market different clocked chips as the same chip.

What would be a more likely (but subtle) problem is that the tolerance/overclocking-headroom would likely be different, depending on which foundry it came from.

But I don't think it makes sense that they'd produce the same chip at two different foundries, because as it was pointed out, you'd have to have slightly different designs for each foundry. What's more likely is what you pointed out - different classes of GPUs being fabbed at different foundries.

So, I guess in summary: thanks for pointing that the (likely?) possibility that they'll be fabbing different classes of GPUs at the different foundries :P

Of course, this would also kill some of the mods that would change a lower end product into a higher end product with a simple firmware update, which I am sure AMD would not mind.

As you said the quality of the chip could be different and this could lead to more heat on one over the other if they were clocked the same. This is what people are worried about. It is unlikely if you think practically about it but companies have been doing it with all sorts of tech products for a long time so maybe it is not really that unlikely.

I think you'll likely see certain price ranges coming from certain foundries. So 7200-7500 would come from one and 7600-7900 would come from the other. It would be insane to design the whole line up to made by both sides. However, designing products for different product segments for one or the other wouldn't be nearly as intense.

TSMC and GlobalFoundries both use ASML machines for manufacturing - so at their core, processed will be the same. No need to differentiate the designs.

At 130nm, there were still many major players in the equipment industry - it's not the same as now, where ASML owns 80% of the market...

In the same way that AMD caught up to Intel with the original Athlon vs. Pentium 3, it is possible that GF managed to catch up in terms of fab process improvements. We have seen that TSMC has had problems moving to a new process node, so with the help of IBM, GF may have caught up.

GF "catch up" with TSMC?

Let laugh out loud!

GF is second to only Intel and possibly IBM (if low-volume fabs are considered)

If you mean the Charered part of GloFo playing catch-up, you better hold your breath. Chartered was actually able to compete in the last cycle maily due to AMD/GF's help and the 28nm will come from Dresden aka "AMD" part of GF, at least the initial stuff, that is.

Subject Comment

Please login or register to post a comment.
User Name Password