<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Llano delay helped yields</title>
		<description>Discuss Llano delay helped yields</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 06:48:18 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/22374/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>dew111 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20759</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Llano isn't new, it's K10.5 with graphics from the HD5000/6000 series. Also, not all yield problems are AMD's fault. Intel owns all their fabs, but AMD now uses GloFo. AMD's engineering does play a part in yield, but if GloFo can't get decent yields on ANY chips, it's not all AMD's fault. As far as being behind Intel in process size, this has always been, and will be the case for the next few years. Intel has more money for R&D, and is way ahead of everyone. Intel has more money for more engineers, so it's not really a big surprise that they can stay ahead of AMD. With more engineers (and marketers), Intel can focus on pushing a message of Tick-Tock development. AMD has to make do with the process size and designs available.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dew111</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:40:45 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20759</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20681</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Psycho, welcome to Fuadland... for FUDland as we like to call it. Have a fun time while you're here, we all do. Also, while Tick-Tock might be good for Intel, it's not as good for its customers and intel's lack of socket and chipset backwards compatibility is nothing to admire. Nobody expected llano to be on schedule but it will come out and it will be a one-of-a-kind chip in the x86 space.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:30:52 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20681</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Psycho says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20627</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Llano IS the existing K10.5 cpu architecture and existing evergreen gpu architecture on a new process (especially for the gpu part), so all that crap about not being tick-tock is quite amusing... Lack of tick-tock would be trying to launch bulldozer as the first chip on the 32nm node - now the launches are just too close together because of the GF 32nm delay delaying Llano.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Psycho</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:31:41 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20627</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20613</link>
			<description><![CDATA[and first GPU on a non-bulk process, and first GPU on 32nm's. i have a feeling the yield problems were mostly found in the GPU part of the chip.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:35:28 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20613</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nubstick says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20605</link>
			<description><![CDATA[More like shitty yields delayed llano. Also, what's with the sudden change in Fraud's opinion from "Llano is just original Athlon architecture" to "Llano is completely new architecture?" We know Llano is a revision of the Phenom core, what's really new is that this is their first GPU on SOI.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nubstick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:21:57 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20605</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>pogsnet says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20581</link>
			<description><![CDATA[April 19 is the possible launch for Llano but its up to the partners as AMD said. We will see them this month. Quad cores 1.8Ghz I think, and faster versions soon.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>pogsnet</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:46:52 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20581</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>nele says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20570</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, K10.5+ or whatever you want to call it is ultimately derived from the good old K8... Yes, every new generation and die shrink is tweaked, optimized, modernized, but a truly new architecture is something else. As you said, Ivy won't be a new architecture, and in many respects neither were the K10 and K10.5, whereas Bulldozer on the other hand is a an entirely new design...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>nele</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:36:43 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20570</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>yourma2000 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20568</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't think yields will matter that much to price since AMD said they're only going to pay for working dies rather than the whole wafer, the only thing it will effect is availability, I prefer it this way as you're not choosing between a new architecture or a new fab process when upgrading because you're getting both]]></description>
			<dc:creator>yourma2000</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:20:54 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20568</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>ramcoza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20545</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Btw: no shrink is simple, every involves changes, every is a new "design", in a way. Husky cores in Llano are a shrink of K10.5, yes, but they are modified and they are changed, like every shrink and new design. Ivy Bridge also will be a modified SB etc. You should know those things. But still simpler than putting a completely new architecture on a new tech process..]]></description>
			<dc:creator>ramcoza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:05:24 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20545</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Vithren says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20537</link>
			<description><![CDATA["The reason was quite simple, the lack of Tick - Tock strategy at AMD. Llano is AMD's first 32nm chip with a new architecture, and if you look at Intel, you simply never see them making a brand new architecture on a new process(...)" - oh no-you-didn't! So NOW it's "new architecture", while months ago were you wining about Llano being K8 architecture? Oh, funny, my poor friend. Btw: no shrink is simple, every involves changes, every is a new "design", in a way. Husky cores in Llano are a shrink of K10.5, yes, but they are modified and they are changed, like every shrink and new design. Ivy Bridge also will be a modified SB etc. You should know those things.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Vithren</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:13:30 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22374-llano-delay-helped-yields#comment-20537</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
