Transmeta sells processor line

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:> I just don't get it. Transmeta's been losing
bucketloads of money on
> a product that costs too much for the performance it delivers, but now
> another company thinks they can do better by taking it to a different
> fab and paying licensing fees? I guess they can eliminate the R&D
> costs, but even without those costs Transmeta is REALLY struggling to
> break-even (last quarter showed $6.86M in revenue and $28.08M in
> expenses of which only $12.22M were listed as R&D costs).

I get the feeling that this company may be one of those companies that
builds products around the Crusoe, so it wants to ensure that the
Crusoe continues to exist.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 31 May 2005 12:37:55 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>EEProductCenter.com :: Transmeta sells processor line to Hong Kong firm
>http://www.eeproductcenter.com/analog/review/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163702355

Hmm.. odd.. They're only selling the (older) Crusoe line. Not so much
'odd' that Transmeta wanted to do this, more 'odd' in that I can't
understand how this Culturecom company plans to make any money off
buying this processor. The company isn't even getting a license to
the entire chip, they'll apparently still need to pay royalties for it
as well as for the Efficeon.

I could MAYBE understand this if Crusoe or Efficeon were low-cost
chips like VIA's C3, but they aren't really that cheap to produce. At
113mm^2 on a 130nm process the Efficeon is actually larger than an
AthlonXP/Sempron with 512KB of cache (101mm^2) and not far off the
131mm^2 of a 130nm Pentium4 (ie Northwood). Crusoe's 55m^2 die makes
it a bit more economical, though the trade-off here is abysmal
performance (about on-par with a 1998 era 400MHz Celeron).

I just don't get it. Transmeta's been losing bucketloads of money on
a product that costs too much for the performance it delivers, but now
another company thinks they can do better by taking it to a different
fab and paying licensing fees? I guess they can eliminate the R&D
costs, but even without those costs Transmeta is REALLY struggling to
break-even (last quarter showed $6.86M in revenue and $28.08M in
expenses of which only $12.22M were listed as R&D costs).


-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 31 May 2005 21:42:41 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:> I just don't get it. Transmeta's been losing
>bucketloads of money on
>> a product that costs too much for the performance it delivers, but now
>> another company thinks they can do better by taking it to a different
>> fab and paying licensing fees? I guess they can eliminate the R&D
>> costs, but even without those costs Transmeta is REALLY struggling to
>> break-even (last quarter showed $6.86M in revenue and $28.08M in
>> expenses of which only $12.22M were listed as R&D costs).
>
>I get the feeling that this company may be one of those companies that
>builds products around the Crusoe, so it wants to ensure that the
>Crusoe continues to exist.

Actually looking at their website it would seem that they are the
company behind that V-Dragon CPU. This is the chip who's only real
claim to fame was that it was 100% Chinese designed and built.
Otherwise they seem to focus on low cost embedded PC type systems
specifically for the south-east Asian market. The Transmeta chips
would kinda-sorta make sense here if they were cheap to produce, but
with their complex design I just can't see it really working out well.
Ahh well, perhaps they have some other ideas that I haven't thought
of.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

If they're behind the V-Dragon, maybe this is a hedge against a
sub-optimal design of the V-Dragon?

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 2 Jun 2005 14:13:52 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>If they're behind the V-Dragon, maybe this is a hedge against a
>sub-optimal design of the V-Dragon?

Could be.. I don't really know much of anything about that V-Dragon
chip other than the fact that it's born and raised in China.. I'm not
even sure what ISA it uses (if it even uses a known-ISA other than one
all it's own).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2005 14:13:52 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If they're behind the V-Dragon, maybe this is a hedge against a
>>sub-optimal design of the V-Dragon?
>
>
> Could be.. I don't really know much of anything about that V-Dragon
> chip other than the fact that it's born and raised in China.. I'm not
> even sure what ISA it uses (if it even uses a known-ISA other than one
> all it's own).

There was talk about two made-in-china designs. One using the MIPS ISA,
the other the x86 ISA.

Another thing I heard recently is that this company is also known for
its comic books in China. Don't know how relevant that is. :)

Yousuf Khan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom