Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,915 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote:


The short story, you can read it in this press release, is that the Wafer Purchase Agreement between AMD and Global Foundries has changed. AMD used to pay per wafer, as is the industry norm for dealing with foundries, and they still do for 45nm wafers. On 32nm wafers, AMD is now paying per good chip, something that is never done, even when things are horrifically bad. On top of that, AMD also takes a $492 million non-cash gain in Q1 relating to Global Foundries, the Chartered Semiconductor acquisition, and how that deal is structured.

Read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
I get the feeling that this'll mean the end of "unlockable" processors, since they're not taking any "bad" chips to be reborn into dual/quad/(most possibly)hexa-core processors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,863 Posts
Sweet this just means that AMD is finding a way to make the BD chips cheaper for consumers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Toransu
View Post

I get the feeling that this'll mean the end of "unlockable" processors, since they're not taking any "bad" chips to be reborn into dual/quad/(most possibly)hexa-core processors.

I think they mean bad chip as in DOA, that does not fully function, before AMD are paying by Per wafer meaning if there is few bad yielding in some of those wafer, AMD gonna eat those lost

so for example $10 per wafer including the bad one...

Now that same wafer cost only $7 because few of the chips are bad

This will bring price lower to consumer as well

Unless GF are charging more per chips then on wafer.

(Those pricing is just an example)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,741 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by DrDarkTempler
View Post

I think they mean bad chip as in DOA, that does not fully function, before AMD are paying by Per wafer meaning if there is few bad yielding in some of those wafer, AMD gonna eat those lost

so for example $10 per wafer including the bad one...

Now that same wafer cost only $7 because few of the chips are bad

This will bring price lower to consumer as well

Unless GF are charging more per chips then on wafer.

(Those pricing is just an example)

Or AMD could charge the same but make more money. Either way, more money for AMD is good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Not sure if this is good or bad news... will be interesting to see peoples responses on this.

EDIT:
Quote:
Whatever the real reasons are, they will likely be answered during a call AMD has for the financial community Monday morning.
NEWS TOMORROW?!?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
hmm this should bring the prices of CPU's down hopefully. AMD is already band for buck and buck for core.

if clock for clock AMD perform better then Intel and the price is the normal bang for buck then i think that AMD will start to own market share.

Now all they need is a nice kernel to work with OSX and that will be all access to all markets
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Well I really hope that the 28nm process is a really nice high quality performance wise, I remember hearing oh the 68xx's will be great and will be 28nm, then is was supposed to be the 69xx's. Now AMD is only willing to pay by the good chip? Oh yeah it's been an extra year and now their still not really all that confident with the production quality?

Amd please don't let your self get distracted, yes... yes... I know that bulldozer is running late, fine things happen. But if a chip fab can't live up to your requirements just move on, I don't want my upcoming 7xxx card to end up being your take on a 590.
 

·
Dream with your eyes open
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toransu;12993257
I get the feeling that this'll mean the end of "unlockable" processors, since they're not taking any "bad" chips to be reborn into dual/quad/(most possibly)hexa-core processors.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That is all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Maybe its a way to get Global back on there toes on chip production. It they have gotten sloppy it would be beneficial to AMD to go production based. People and company's work better and more efficiently when there pay is dependent on performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
If they're buying per die instead of wafer that's bad news.

Manufacturers purchase per wafer (based on high yield), if they're buying per die I assume yield is bad and will correlate with higher costs; I hope I'm wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,625 Posts
Who knows, maybe they still are indeed taking bad chips, just not paying for them anymore
There will still be 6 core and 4 core BD with partially disabled core segments, I assume they will continue to use slightly defective core parts similar to Phenom II.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,487 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fools79;12993940
Well I really hope that the 28nm process is a really nice high quality performance wise, I remember hearing oh the 68xx's will be great and will be 28nm, then is was supposed to be the 69xx's. Now AMD is only willing to pay by the good chip? Oh yeah it's been an extra year and now their still not really all that confident with the production quality?

Amd please don't let your self get distracted, yes... yes... I know that bulldozer is running late, fine things happen. But if a chip fab can't live up to your requirements just move on, I don't want my upcoming 7xxx card to end up being your take on a 590.
amd has a signed agreement with glofo to use more of their fabs capacity in the future ... amd cant back up out of such contract easily ... and anyway glofo is amd's past foundry .. so they know alot about this business ...

paying for good chips instead of paying for a full wafer and end up paying for some duds that you cant sell is better.. its win/win for amd ...

so i wish them well with this new approach

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman331;13017297
If they're buying per die instead of wafer that's bad news.

Manufacturers purchase per wafer (based on high yield), if they're buying per die I assume yield is bad and will correlate with higher costs; I hope I'm wrong.
doesnt mean that at all ... it could mean that amd was losing valueable money and since they own 30% shares of glofo they negotiated a deal because they have a contract to use glofo more and more in the future .. so glofo said why not .. they are a customer we wont lose anyway ....

so glofo take the blow on the yield part .. not that it might be horrible .. and amd makes as much proffit as they can ... so more money for development .. and maybe more aggresive pricing .. wich would result in more dies request .. wich is more demand for glofo wich is win for them ....

or it could be something more simple along the line of OMG bulldozer is fail or something stupid like that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Fr0sty
View Post

amd has a signed agreement with glofo to use more of their fabs capacity in the future ... amd cant back up out of such contract easily ... and anyway glofo is amd's past foundry .. so they know alot about this business ...

paying for good chips instead of paying for a full wafer and end up paying for some duds that you cant sell is better.. its win/win for amd ...

so i wish them well with this new approach

doesnt mean that at all ... it could mean that amd was losing valueable money and since they own 30% shares of glofo they negotiated a deal because they have a contract to use glofo more and more in the future .. so glofo said why not .. they are a customer we wont lose anyway ....

so glofo take the blow on the yield part .. not that it might be horrible .. and amd makes as much proffit as they can ... so more money for development .. and maybe more aggresive pricing .. wich would result in more dies request .. wich is more demand for glofo wich is win for them ....

or it could be something more simple along the line of OMG bulldozer is fail or something stupid like that

Either this.. Or theyre just having a really hard time with initial 32nm production.. I thought i remember hearing intel had problems with their 32nm production process right off the bat too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by killeraxemannic
View Post

Sweet this just means that AMD is finding a way to make the BD chips cheaper for consumers!

No. Charging per die means that GloFo's yields are very bad. It means that AMD are sucking tonnes of loss from bad wafers at the moment. This means that AMD will be paying quite a high price per die - purely because the other dies are of bad quality. They'll be saving some money in the short term, but if GloFo improves its 32nm process, it could tip the balance towards AMD losing lots of money.

This is a real indicator of GloFo performance - even nVidia pay by the wafer at TSMC, and they had torrid yields at one point.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
10,321 Posts
I would say this is a smart move. Now we'll have less complaining that products come DOA or need to be RMAed. Save some money. That doesn't mean you won't be able to get products that unclock. They just give you the good chips. Good chips work. Unclockable chips are unclockable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by HybridCore
View Post

I would say this is a smart move. Now we'll have less complaining that products come DOA or need to be RMAed. Save some money. That doesn't mean you won't be able to get products that unclock. They just give you the good chips. Good chips work. Unclockable chips are unclockable.

Not true. DOAs are caused by damage in transit - not at the fab - those ones are filtered out and never get that far. Of the chips made, between 10 and 50% could have an issue of some kind. This article goes into detail about the process of making a die and binning - quite interesting: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...and-to-shelf/1
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top