Wallis has provided a lot of good DD on Intel and its competition over the years and more often than not he has been on the right side of the technology wind. His mistake is getting into pointless thread-cluttering personality arguments with you and others, You should just ignore each other and both your lives will be better for it.
It's just temporary Short manipulation which is easy to do when volume is low and your panicking shows you are falling right into their hands. Stay relaxed, don't panic and the price will recover and then some. Every time it jolts upwards, more resistance is being worn away and when buying volume finally returns large percentage jumps will be easier.
I don't think you understand how the x86 cross-license works, the money only goes one way, from all the other licensees to Intel and Intel gets to use other licensee x86 patents for free. This is why there has never been any x86 licensing revenue for AMD ever and never will be. Some say that is not fair but seriously, x86 is Intel's proprietary ISA and should it be tied to a second-source IBM PC agreement that is now 30 years old for perpetuity ? The anti-monopoly agencies seem to think so, I am not so sure as that is a bit of stretch now with ARM around to provide competition. Sorry but you will have to find another angle to pump this stock.
One more thing, shrink the damn game chips onto 20nm asap because at the moment the dies are so huge TSMC make twice as much profit off them as AMD do. With a 20nm shrink that ratio would be reversed. I expect the new CEO, who was an EE involved in IBM's processes, will appreciate and action all this.
If I still had the CEO's ear this is what I would advise. At 16FF I would do a single 12-core Excavator chip that can fit all the way up to the FX-9590 220W power range in AM3+ motherboards. From this single 12-core chip (which would be a smaller die than the 32nm 8-core FX-9590) do 6/8/10-core slugged versions (improves yields too) which would also be higher clocked as they lose two cores so for example 7 GHz 6-core, 6.7 GHz 8-core, 6.3 GHz 10-core, 6 GHz 12-core. Yes I really believe they would clock that high considering the FX-9590 does 8 GHz with extreme cooling and 16FF is a big improvement on 28nm. These would be instant i5/i7 competitors at very little outlay considering only one chip is designed of an existing future AMD core and the motherboards that can take that power already exist. Take the Bulldozer family to its natural conclusion and get full ROI on the damned design !!!
No, instead Excavator/Steamroller will still be on 28nm and only 4-core !!! Read not only deserved to get the sack, they should claw back the money they paid him with all these incompetent lowest common denominator roadmaps ! This stupid insistence now on having just one platform going forward means all the chips turn out mediocre by having to fit just one 65W power socket. It just makes me mad to see how they have ruined a perfect competent cpu company from the K7-K10 era.
The smart thing to do now would be to do two final shrinks of Piledriver on TSMC 20nm and 16FF as that would finally unlock the clockspeed potential the design has but on air-cooling, I reckon a 16FF Piledriver would be knocking on 6 GHz and would a very competitive design as it would show the design's true potential. Unfortunately AMD are not too hot on being smart these days.
While I am on the subject of IBM screwing AMD, they have manged to get a 22nm PD-SOI shrink that AMD could have used but it is so damned expensive and exotic with so many metal layers and which they are primarily using to make Power-8. IBM have built their processes for performance and not cheap manufacturability like Intel and PD-SOI was an expensive dead-end in the end.
GF employed exactly the same people that AMD did before AMD handed it over. This is nothing to do either with half or full nodes. It's due to the fact that the IBM/AMD/G-F 32nm PD-SOI gate-first HKMG was a complete #$%$-up of a process in terms of yields. Yields were initially as bad as one or two chips per wafer ! I blame IBM for this as they should have used gate-last for HKMG like Intel and TSMC correctly did. Gate-first is smaller and higher performing but that's no good if you can't get any yields. It cost $$$$$$$$$ of investment by Abu Dhabi to get this working in the end which AMD did not have so getting rid of the FABs when they had a decent working 45nm process was the smart thing to do by Hector as they would have been unsellable with that initial 32nm process !
Hector was a great CEO, he was just let down by the idiotic cpu designs dreamed up by Dirk Meyer and his teams. Hector saved this company by buying ATI and selling off FABs which were becoming uncompetitive and had badly yielding new 32nm processes.
The only idiot and moron here is YOU flapping your gums and waving your arms about about technology you know squat about.
'yes it allows AMD to increase frequency such as their 4.0 Ghz chips but it has had the opposite effect when it comes to TDP it has increased TDP instead of lowering as promised.'
The TDP was increased because the Bulk TSMC process was inferior in that regard to the PD-SOI G-F process. What AMD should have done is gone all in and used a FD-SOI 28nm process as they are very power efficient in that regard and almost as good as FinFET/Trigate and Samsung are now offering this process commercially after obtaining the design from ST-Micro
I don't know if you remember the Moore slide from about 8 years ago where he pointed out how bad hyperthreading was compared to cluster-based threading because it killed single-thread performance. Well Intel fixed that in Core 2 and Bulldozer OTOH absolutely killed single-thread performance by basically have a quad-issue decoder feed two dual-issue pipes. When I saw the Bulldozer die floor plan when it came out I just knew the company was dead and told this thread as well as the Ihub one. It's like going back to the future and substituting two K6 cores for one K7, it just was not going to work.
Bulldozer should have just been a single quad-issue core all the way thru even if they had not worked out hyper-threading by then because it still would have been a single-thread improvement over K10 Stars and they still could have thrown in a extra core to make up for it, like a triple-core vs i3 and a six-core vs i5 and an octo-core vs i7. This would have been an unsophisticated approach but it would have damned work and preserved ASPs. I also wonder now about that ex-Intel architect Glew who helped propagate this cluster-based design at AMD, was he really a plant because he went back to Intel after and is now at MIPS ?
Barcelona had a unified L3 cache or did you mean an inclusive vs exclusive cache ? I prefer exclusive myself like AMD did because it means you don't duplicate L2 cache in L3 so your actual cache is larger.
LOL, never mind the fact I used to personally advise Hector Ruiz on which sku models to bring out ! I think the only amateur is you blabbing your mouth off about technology you know squat about. Shrinking is eminently possible idiot and is what AMD did with the basic K7 Athlon design all the way to the K10 Stars core which was basically the same triple-issue design enhanced over many process shrinks. AMD only went badly wrong when they stopped a successful formula and tried something radically different with cluster-based threading in Bulldozer and it's virtually killed the company. BTW the same type of design killed Sun too as Niagara is another cluster-based design.
I don't know if I should really be helping a professional paid INTC basher but do you know that you now can get mathematical accelerator cards for PCs like Xeon Phi or even modified gpus like Nvidia Tesla and Radeon Profire* ? Buy one of each, try it in your i7 and see what works best and than you can get built a Haswell-E rig which allows for 4 of these accelerators on one motherboard or a Xeon E which will allow for multi-sockets and multi-core. Alternatively you can just retrofit that ASIC with a later model, duh !
Small core APUs have to compete against Atom which is being given away for free now and ARM chips from everyone. Big core x86 APUs if done right could still provide this company with a living. Unfortunately AMD have not done one right since the 45nm K10 Stars chips.
In 2011 he increased his NVDA price target from 30 to 40. The guy is totally clueless about tech.
'Amd has absolutely PROVEN that it is NOT A MICRO intel. Amd just picks up intel's waste products - the low end and not profitable waste that intel gladly gives up.'
It once used to be a micro Intel when the K7 Athlon and K8 Athlon64 designs were introduced. There is no conceivable reason that they could not be again if not for some bad cpu architectural decisions. They never should have given up the evolved K8 that was the 45nm K10 Stars cpu. Three of its cores were really competitive against two of Intel's Core cpus in the i3 and the six in the top model were competitive against the four Cores in i5/i7. They just should have kept shrinking it and added hyper-threading to make it more competitive. This would have saved AMD's core cpu base.
What has destroyed AMD was the failed Bulldozer chip, a fundamentally flawed design where basically a beefed up Stars core was cut in two to mimic hyper-threading that is maxed out on clockspeed and power yet still comes up short in performance against Core generally and even Stars in single-thread. This will not be rectified if at all until Keller's K12 comes online.
As to AMD being a bottom feeder well that used to be a living for it but ever since Intel started giving away Bay Trail chips to gain a tablet foothold against ARM poor AMD has been collateral damage which just goes to prove what you always said, Intel could always have killed AMD anytime if it did not mind sacrificing some negligible profits in the short-term to do so as it controls the x86 sku pricing stack.
You are extrapolating far too much from that one word, they are still selling the same exact parts after that sentence was penned as they were before, the MMS-1000 and OEM-1000.
I already told astcbuy1 in another thread he was mistaken too about calling payload23 mars. I think 4 missions were worked on up to the sale as it was a busy sendoff. The escrow account is no big deal considering the company's burnate without ASO is only $6-8m a year, the company could wait 5 years for that $6m and still not sweat it. Spacetech revenue was $266K over the last 2 years so that is about 8 sales or so but the funny part was the Spacetech loss was only $11m over those 2 years which IMSC burns through in 2 quarters on its sales. so which company has time and money on its side ?
p.s. that sensor wording extrapolation is just you reaching, 1st Detect parts go for tens of K in any configuration. No, I think I will stay here some more just to annoy you some more as you can't handle the truth ;-)
I actually gave you your first thumbs up on a pretty decent post without too much added hype, something I never thought I would do on the IMSC board lol !