Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Reportedly Scraps 28 nm APUs at GlobalFoundries

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
November 22, 2011 6:14:42 PM

He needs to bring the CPU business back on track by throwing ending Bulldozer quickly and developing a new CPU architecture. Steal from Intel!
Score
-24
November 22, 2011 6:20:27 PM

Well I guess this puts the AMD community reporter's statement that everything between AMD and GF is hunkey-dorey to rest..
Score
13
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 22, 2011 6:23:38 PM

AMD will ALWAYS be behind; as Intel effectively controls the technology and the market. Naturally, AMD can just play 'follow the leader'. So if Intel comes out with something new, surprise... AMD will be behind and catching up; again. Frustrating position to be in.
Score
-15
November 22, 2011 6:27:13 PM

Pity..

AMD is in some strife, I really REALLY hope they make a comeback. There needs to be competition in the market in the high-end segment.

I'm planning on getting a FX8120/FX8150 for a small home VM server and just to generally play around with to find it's strong and weak spots. Oh and to help out team Green. :p 
Score
19
November 22, 2011 6:27:37 PM

amd should do the maunfacturing itself. if it goes to tsmc, I will never suggest one and in my network we will never attempt a amd cpu.
This dushbag needs to get a clue. Do the work youself. stop relying on others to do it for you.
Score
-21
November 22, 2011 6:32:02 PM

AMD should be thinking more along the line of 22nm if they are thinking starting from scratch, though i do not know if TMSC could provide them with a solution.
Score
11
November 22, 2011 6:33:10 PM

freggoAMD will ALWAYS be behind; as Intel effectively controls the technology and the market. Naturally, AMD can just play 'follow the leader'. So if Intel comes out with something new, surprise... AMD will be behind and catching up; again. Frustrating position to be in.

AMD may be stuck playing catch-up as far as CPU performance is concerned, but Intel will likely be stuck playing catch-up to AMD's APUs. I'd still take a Llano laptop/ultrabook over any Intel solution any day. People don't seem to get that CPU performance is at a "good enough" level nowadays and most consumers won't notice much, if any, difference between going with an expensive Intel Core-whatever or a cheaper AMD solution unless they are gamers that must play on the highest quality settings or actually use their computers for computationally intensive tasks fairly often. The vast majority of the market does not fit into those categories.
Score
25
November 22, 2011 6:34:59 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't just hop on the "AMD Hate" bandwagon that seems to have swept everyone else's feet. Its great that AMD is buckling down and is trying to make changes to regain its composure. I don't understand why you have people wanting to see the downfall of a company that gives us something other than "Intel". If AMD focuses more on its APUs we can see them overtaking the low-end/mid-range market, which has the larger and more profitable base. Yeah, their Bulldozer didn't sweep Intel, but it doesn't mean they are failing. If I recall correctly, their APUs are selling like hotcakes and Bulldozer is decent enough to be considered in a build.

Just like I enjoy Android but don't want to see Apple fail, I don't want to see AMD fail. I want them to succeed and force innovation. AMD brings something different and that's what we need in today's world.
Score
33
November 22, 2011 6:44:05 PM

IIRC, TSMC had something like a 4% success rate with early high-end GPUs from AMD/ATi and NVidia. 96% went to the bin.

If AMD thinks that this is better than what GF can do, then GF is in a very scary place right now.

FWIW, I honestly believe that chip designers and manufacturers should be different. While there may not be a higher-margin device than an Intel chip right now, what if there were? And what if a third party wanted to use Intel's fab to make it, because that fab was the only one capable of doing so? If the price is right, and the capacity is there, why should Intel be the only one allowed to use it?
Score
-9
November 22, 2011 6:45:50 PM

I hope Roy takes AMD of GloFo's list and shows GF what their IQ is.
Score
-2
November 22, 2011 6:53:22 PM

That is good. They just need to focus on high yield for APUs specially on mobile market, currently that is their strongest point on consumer market. Coupling that with OpenCL to strengthen their grip not only in media acceleration but also in HPC market.

(I wonder if it is feasible/possible for AMD to get into ARM as well?)

AMD needs to compete with nVidia in HPC. They have the capacity, they need to raise their support and development bar. Why they are not competing in Server GPUs as effective as nVidia??? Their Server CPU and GPU solution -> cheaper cost for HPC from on vendor??

I personally think, the new guy is very competent. AMD is behind and that is a fact, they need to focus on opportunities that are opening/closing before it becomes too late.

And as for desktop, I think when it comes to consumer media needs (gaming including) GPU is playing much effective role than CPU. GPGPU is taking over the most CPU intensive tasks. I am happy with X6 Phenom and I dont see myself upgrading soon.

lastly, for AMD to stay competitive in X86, they need to throw money in R&D and prioritize server competition and MARKETING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Score
9
November 22, 2011 7:04:25 PM

In my opinion, this is a good move for AMD. A better move might be to make the chips themselves, however, that is an expensive proposition if they do not already own the equipment. If AMD can bring it in house, I think they should.

I worked for a global photographic leader, and, IMHO, their main failing was that they wanted to buy everything off the shelf, and if they could not, they expected that exactly what they needed would magically appear on the market when they needed it so that they could buy it. In my opinion, that was a big failing of theirs since they had the intellectual know-how to make everything they needed themselves. It is not always cheaper to outsource, and it seems that in many cases it is cheaper for a company to develop their needed capabilities themselves rather than outsource; start-up costs are high, however, the payoff will come if the venture is successful - and - perhaps most importantly - a company that positions themselves as such will be at no one's mercy.
Score
6
November 22, 2011 7:10:55 PM

That's a fairly big set back. AMD will have to re-tapeout their APU for TSMC, which could take 6 months to a year or more.
Score
3
a b À AMD
November 22, 2011 7:17:19 PM

While this may look like an amputation, sometimes that's what the patient needs. This CEO seems to have a clue. I hope for the sake of competition and lower prices that he is successful.
Score
8
November 22, 2011 7:19:39 PM

*sigh*
@supall
Nobody hates AMD, they're just worried about all the bad decision making. You say that Llano is selling like hotcakes, but they had a lot of fab issues, and didn't pump out a whole lot of supply on those, leading to some frustrated partners, and a lot of lost opportunity. You say Bulldozer is "decent enough to be considered in a build", but I disagree. Looking at Bulldozer's performance, efficiency, and price, NO, it's NOT, worth considering in almost ANY build.

Which has me really concerned about Trinity. AMD is reporting 20-30% gains vs Llano, but Ivy Brige has made up a LOT of ground on the GPU. I think that AMD will still have the GPU performance advantage, but Intel's integrated graphics will be "good enough" for a lot of users, and the CPU performance and power consumption numbers should put Trinity to shame badly. So badly, in fact, that I worry that Trinity is going to lose the market for things like HTPCs to Ivy Bridge stuff, as well as get it's ass kicked in the mobile sector.

As far as Apple goes... No, actually, I think it's legitimate to hope Apple fails. They're a negative company when it comes to innovation, basically patent blocking eveyone, suing business partners, and doing their best to make the most closed environment possible for their users, so that they can have as much control over the content possible, and leverage unfair prices. They're one of the most evil tech companies around right now, to be perfectly honest.

So, yeah. Pretty much disagree with you on all points, except for the general "I wish AMD would do better, since we need them to compete with Intel." To which I totally agree. But, I'm not going to go as far as buy a POS FX8120 or something. If I'm going to go that far, I'll buy an Ivy Bridge, and then mail AMD 20 bucks in a envelope with a note that says "PLZ stop sucking, you just made me buy Intel again".
Score
4
November 22, 2011 7:37:09 PM

I'm confused by the ExtremeTech story. The author cites "independent sources" that claim the 28-nm APUs are in serious trouble and "likely" would not see the light of day. I read that as "Outside sources say these chips are in serious trouble and will probably be cancelled" rather than "AMD has cancelled them, and they are as dead as fried chicken."

But the next sentence is also confusing: "AMD reportedly finalized the decision to cancel..."

Uh, reported by who? The independent sources? Or AMD? Or a third-party news outlet not mentioned in the story? If that information was received by the independent sources....then why are they saying the products "LIKELY won't see the light of day"? If these sources knew that AMD had finalized the decision to cancel the products, well, then there's no "likely" about it. Story just seems a little....unclear to me.
Score
6
November 22, 2011 7:43:06 PM

I call it a bluff.
While he might be frustrated and tired of working with GlobalFoundries, the impact of such a decision is just too big. He is probably going after some kind of "discount" or compensation from GlobalFoundries, while also indirectly telling them to get their act together and deliver.
Score
2
November 22, 2011 7:46:04 PM

Real men have fabs.

AMD is a bitch now.
Score
-4
November 22, 2011 8:01:22 PM

I am in the process of writing an article that is along these lines. My questions to a lead AMD exec, seems to state that they are 110% intent on doing it right this next time. There won't be another "bulldozer fiasco" Their next new architecture will be fantastic.
Score
-4
November 22, 2011 8:05:15 PM

Just because AMD is behind on performance doesn't mean they aren't getting competitive sales with the price to performance they have.
Score
5
a b À AMD
November 22, 2011 8:07:20 PM

fazers_on_stunWell I guess this puts the AMD community reporter's statement that everything between AMD and GF is hunkey-dorey to rest..


We called it, didn't we? I wonder what GF will do without AMD. They will have to either shape up or die out. But then who will FAB their 32nm parts.....
Score
3
November 22, 2011 8:11:08 PM

freggoAMD will ALWAYS be behind; as Intel effectively controls the technology and the market. Naturally, AMD can just play 'follow the leader'. So if Intel comes out with something new, surprise... AMD will be behind and catching up; again. Frustrating position to be in.

Historically this has not been true. Can we say AMD64 anyone? or perhaps integrated memory contollers, or the fact that Intels graphics are a joke? I would not agree that AMD is a follow the leader company, and they have at times and will in the future bring innnovative ideas to market. The one are they are always behind those is manufacturing process. And that is the one advantage that keeps intel in the lead.
Score
5
Anonymous
November 22, 2011 8:25:38 PM

This is a good move for AMD. GF sucks! TSMC is a good potential partner. This may be a set back as far as 2012 is concerned, but will be a step up for the future. While we keep talking Intel, AMD is worried from both sides of the fence. They have Intel to worry about as the elephant in the room, but they also have a fast growing market from beneath them called ARM that will be available in late 2012 as a PC platform. They needed to make a move and do it in a hurry. They can now position themselves to compete in 2013 when things are going to get interesting with ARM and a newly revamped ATOM on the low end, plus Intel Haswell on the top end. They could all put the squeeze on AMD and make them pretty non existent if they didn't make some serious changes. ARM is a bigger threat right now to AMD than it is to Intel because it will fill a value market segment.

Score
2
Anonymous
November 22, 2011 8:28:30 PM

Didn't Intel originally make an integrated controller for the P6 derivative, but scrapped that project and went to the PII and it's great Win95 performance (NT wasn't the big seller back then - circa '96). I do recall that Intel was developing an integrated memory controller and AMD certainly wasn't the first company to do that anyway. Noow x64 is definitely all AMD and they were the first to come to the market with 1 GHz and a 'true' multicore PC chip.
Score
0
November 22, 2011 8:30:31 PM

This could be good for GloFo for now. They can work on perfecting their 32nm and producing higher volume for 32nm chips. TSMC can work on getting 28nm ready for 2013 or whenever.
Score
1
November 22, 2011 8:30:54 PM

I've said this countless time about Global Foundries. They are just bad. They should have scrapped them a long time ago, or restructure them as a back up production plant. Use TSMC from the beginning (R&D, prototype chips..etc), then once they figure it out and go into mass production, use Global Foundries as an additional production arm. And if Global Foundries can't even do that, then cut your losses and get rid of them.
Score
1
November 22, 2011 8:35:13 PM

For those saying AMD needs to make their processors themselves.....you need to actually pay attention to the computer industry. AMD used to make their own chips. GF was spun off of AMD a few years ago for financial reasons.

ParsianThat is good. They just need to focus on high yield for APUs specially on mobile market, currently that is their strongest point on consumer market. Coupling that with OpenCL to strengthen their grip not only in media acceleration but also in HPC market.(I wonder if it is feasible/possible for AMD to get into ARM as well?)AMD needs to compete with nVidia in HPC. They have the capacity, they need to raise their support and development bar. Why they are not competing in Server GPUs as effective as nVidia??? Their Server CPU and GPU solution -> cheaper cost for HPC from on vendor??I personally think, the new guy is very competent. AMD is behind and that is a fact, they need to focus on opportunities that are opening/closing before it becomes too late. And as for desktop, I think when it comes to consumer media needs (gaming including) GPU is playing much effective role than CPU. GPGPU is taking over the most CPU intensive tasks. I am happy with X6 Phenom and I dont see myself upgrading soon. lastly, for AMD to stay competitive in X86, they need to throw money in R&D and prioritize server competition and MARKETING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


AMD doesn't actually need ARM.... AMD knows how to create a RISC based processor.

TeramediaIIRC, TSMC had something like a 4% success rate with early high-end GPUs from AMD/ATi and NVidia. 96% went to the bin.If AMD thinks that this is better than what GF can do, then GF is in a very scary place right now.FWIW, I honestly believe that chip designers and manufacturers should be different. While there may not be a higher-margin device than an Intel chip right now, what if there were? And what if a third party wanted to use Intel's fab to make it, because that fab was the only one capable of doing so? If the price is right, and the capacity is there, why should Intel be the only one allowed to use it?


4% success rate would put TSMC out of business. There's too many chip fabs for nVidia, AMD or anyone else to accept a 4% success rate. Actually, TSMC has had good yields with the current fab process according to reports.
Score
3
Anonymous
November 22, 2011 9:20:34 PM

Kyuuketsuki: You've nailed it, mate, +1.

For 99% of people, their computer spends 99% of it's life running at 800mhz, and frankly, the little time it does spend ramping up to 2/3/4ghz isn't that important. However, if they want to do something like some casual 3d gaming, that extra bit of CPU power won't do them a bit of good if they're using Intel's IGP, where the AMD platform has enough CPU and GPU to game respectably.
Score
8
November 22, 2011 9:27:07 PM

freggoAMD will ALWAYS be behind; as Intel effectively controls the technology and the market. Naturally, AMD can just play 'follow the leader'. So if Intel comes out with something new, surprise... AMD will be behind and catching up; again. Frustrating position to be in.


For those of you that are "new" on Tom's hardware, I can recommend brushing up on some old stories: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/latest-update-intel... or go straight to http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-admits-proble... for the summary.
Score
2
November 22, 2011 9:44:24 PM

pedro_mannHistorically this has not been true. Can we say AMD64 anyone? or perhaps integrated memory contollers, or the fact that Intels graphics are a joke? I would not agree that AMD is a follow the leader company, and they have at times and will in the future bring innnovative ideas to market. The one are they are always behind those is manufacturing process. And that is the one advantage that keeps intel in the lead.


Integrated memory controllers have been around since before you were born. There's no innovation in that. Most people were too stupid to realize that the IMC did not make AMD processors better, as proven by the ass-raping they took when the Conroe came out.

AMD64 is a very simple extension of the 386 instruction set. No real innovation there either. The Pentium 4 was an extremely innovative processor, possibly the most that Intel ever made, but, then, it didn't perform that great. Innovation for the sake of Innovation isn't a great thing. AMD doesn't really innovate, but they normally use solid ideas to make solid products. The problem has been recently, their products are stale.

Intel is far more innovative, with the Pentium 4 and Itanium being major examples, although the latter had a lot of input from HP. Even so, neither product was very successful. Pentium 4 technology is why the SB is very good though, so it ended up working out, but the Pentium 4 itself was only one step better than the PoS Bulldozer. AMD can now say they passed Intel in creating a disappointing processor. And it wasn't easy.
Score
-3
November 22, 2011 10:02:36 PM

You can label it as a refocus, you can call it a rebranding. AMD is in trouble. Look at the recent layoffs, look at the recent news. Nothing good is coming out except refocusing articles.
Score
1
Anonymous
November 22, 2011 10:04:39 PM

I like the FUD-tastic double standard here. Compare this:

TSMC cancels 32nm to focus on 28nm(and still takes years to accomplish)

to:

AMD cancels forthcoming GloFo 28nm CPUs to make on an already working TSMC 28nm node.


Does that prove anything other than these advanced nodes are getting really, really hard? Heck, Intel's top-to-bottom 32nm roll-out is still happening 2 years after launching the first 32nm CPU, some of their Xeon lines are still on 45nm. I guarantee that 22nm won't be fully rolled out until 2014 or even 2015/16.

Why does every bit of news spell doom and gloom for AMD? Maybe they picked TSMC's 28nm node because it was better, and/or because of other business considerations.
Score
2
November 22, 2011 10:22:52 PM

AMD stuck between a rock and a hard place. Now they have to compete with all the ARM wafers TSMC is cooking for the tablet/phone markets.
Score
1
November 22, 2011 10:26:10 PM

freggoAMD will ALWAYS be behind; as Intel effectively controls the technology and the market. Naturally, AMD can just play 'follow the leader'. So if Intel comes out with something new, surprise... AMD will be behind and catching up; again. Frustrating position to be in.
Apparently you've never heard of the Athlon CPU or Pentium 4's? "ALWAYS" is a pretty big blanket statement.
Score
3
November 22, 2011 10:27:52 PM

joytech22Pity..AMD is in some strife, I really REALLY hope they make a comeback. There needs to be competition in the market in the high-end segment.I'm planning on getting a FX8120/FX8150 for a small home VM server and just to generally play around with to find it's strong and weak spots. Oh and to help out team Green.


Don't you mean red? I mean I know their logo is green, but they advertise in red while Nvidia's logo is also green, and doesn't advertise in almost completely opposite colors. :\

I say AMD is Team Red while Nvidia is Team Green. Sorry for off topic on my first post to this site...
Score
2
November 22, 2011 10:34:35 PM

And now I realize what I've said. My apologies, got the division of AMD that we're talking about all wrong dont I?
Score
0
Anonymous
November 22, 2011 10:44:50 PM

Seems like AMD is always on the comeback. They always seem to be one step behind and never do catch up.
Score
0
Anonymous
November 22, 2011 10:55:19 PM

Ok everybody, I see alot of 'old news' arguments here. Without knowing AMD from the inside, I would say from the outside AMD needs to be more innovative. There have a core competency what they don't have is the larger market, that could be gained by utilizing some other elements besides silicon (greener elements maybe that's big market) that act as better 'semi' conductors of electricity.
Score
-1
November 22, 2011 10:55:36 PM

Well I don't dislike AMD. Every computer I own, which is under 10 years old, uses an AMD processor. I like the company, but let's face it, it needs to do something drastic SOON or it is going to find itself in the bargain basement of FOR SALE tech companies. And let's be honest, its in a pinch BECAUSE neither Nvidia nor Intel can buy it due to monopoly restrictions (maybe). Certainly Intel could not buy it. But could Nvidia? While that would create a monopoly in the desk top graphics arena, supposedly desk top PCs are dead, so what would be the issue? I think Nvidia should buy AMD and then we would have a real Intel competitor. Right now though, I doubt that AMD has the financial resources to stage a comeback. Of course I hope that I am wrong, and I might be.
Score
-1
a b À AMD
November 22, 2011 11:14:23 PM

supallI'm sorry, but I don't just hop on the "AMD Hate" bandwagon that seems to have swept everyone else's feet. Its great that AMD is buckling down and is trying to make changes to regain its composure. I don't understand why you have people wanting to see the downfall of a company that gives us something other than "Intel". If AMD focuses more on its APUs we can see them overtaking the low-end/mid-range market, which has the larger and more profitable base. Yeah, their Bulldozer didn't sweep Intel, but it doesn't mean they are failing. If I recall correctly, their APUs are selling like hotcakes and Bulldozer is decent enough to be considered in a build.Just like I enjoy Android but don't want to see Apple fail, I don't want to see AMD fail. I want them to succeed and force innovation. AMD brings something different and that's what we need in today's world.

i gave you a thumbs down purely on the statement that a Bulldozer processor is good enough for a build, I couldn't disagree more. Also, i want to see Apple fail, they are a--holes with a dishonest/deceptive business model (more so than other businesses). The first half of your statement is fine though.
Score
-3
November 22, 2011 11:54:02 PM

ta152hIntel is far more innovative, with the Pentium 4 and Itanium being major examples, although the latter had a lot of input from HP. Even so, neither product was very successful.


What are you talking about? Pentium 4 was very successful back in the day. They also took the lead back from AMD when they brought 0.13 micron in and then Hyperthreading and 800MHz FSB.

Oh, and Itanium's server sales are better than AMD's Opteron sales. It might not be a success for Intel but not too bad either.
Score
-3
November 22, 2011 11:59:07 PM

I agree that I wouldn't consider Bulldozer in a build. Thuban, yes, Bulldozer? No. People smacked Intel around for trying hyperthreading, but suddenly it's a good idea now that AMD does it? Doesn't work that way. Can't have your processor and fry it too. :) 

Getting rid of their yield issues would help their business. They need all the clockspeed they can get on Bulldozer to make it worth something other than a Pentium 4 redux.
Score
-2
November 23, 2011 12:55:07 AM

wiyosayaIn my opinion, this is a good move for AMD. A better move might be to make the chips themselves, however, that is an expensive proposition if they do not already own the equipment. If AMD can bring it in house, I think they should.I worked for a global photographic leader, and, IMHO, their main failing was that they wanted to buy everything off the shelf, and if they could not, they expected that exactly what they needed would magically appear on the market when they needed it so that they could buy it. In my opinion, that was a big failing of theirs since they had the intellectual know-how to make everything they needed themselves. It is not always cheaper to outsource, and it seems that in many cases it is cheaper for a company to develop their needed capabilities themselves rather than outsource; start-up costs are high, however, the payoff will come if the venture is successful - and - perhaps most importantly - a company that positions themselves as such will be at no one's mercy.



what you say is true, but in all honesty, a fast paced enviorment like that, or this, unless you are producing in volume, the costs are retardedly high and would force you to either charge a crap ton more, or develop a tech so advanced it doesn't need an update for quite some time.

and in amds case... well... they have the gpu market where they are about 50% correct, but cpu is about 10-20% right...

it may be worthwhile for them to do it in house, considering the gpu line.
Score
-1
November 23, 2011 1:16:20 AM

alidan said:
what you say is true, but in all honesty, a fast paced enviorment like that, or this, unless you are producing in volume, the costs are retardedly high and would force you to either charge a crap ton more, or develop a tech so advanced it doesn't need an update for quite some time.

and in amds case... well... they have the gpu market where they are about 50% correct, but cpu is about 10-20% right...

it may be worthwhile for them to do it in house, considering the gpu line.

Certainly we agree that they need something and that start-up costs are insanely high. Intel has developed their 3d gate technology, and it might do AMD well to start a similar research effort, either in-house, or a collaboration with a university. In my opinion, AMD will need some sort of advanced capability like a fabrication R&D department to stay on top of their game and regain parity with Intel.

Perhaps the main thing that this announcement seems to indicate to me is that someone who "gets it" is now "leading" AMD again rather than faking his way around the corporate lead.
Score
0
Anonymous
November 23, 2011 2:45:13 AM

@wiyosaya

you mean something like SOI maybe......
Score
-1
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 3:34:14 AM

man... what the heck is going on in amd these days.
i am happy that amd decided to go with tsmc (if the rumor is true) and start from scratch. but i am happier that the new ceo is making changes to amd that should make them better. amd is now in a transition phase which will take a while to settle down and i hope amd becomes more effective, innovative and punctual.
i was eagerly waiting for trinity to come out when ivb comes out, looks like i'm gonna have to wait. i guess it'd be a difficult, time consuming process for both amd and tsmc to start producing the 28 nm apus from the begining.
Score
1
November 23, 2011 5:25:07 AM

wiyosaya said:
Certainly we agree that they need something and that start-up costs are insanely high. Intel has developed their 3d gate technology, and it might do AMD well to start a similar research effort, either in-house, or a collaboration with a university. In my opinion, AMD will need some sort of advanced capability like a fabrication R&D department to stay on top of their game and regain parity with Intel.

Perhaps the main thing that this announcement seems to indicate to me is that someone who "gets it" is now "leading" AMD again rather than faking his way around the corporate lead.


if it were me... id collaborate with universities, fund their research, and reap the benefits.

specificly, i would work on 3d chips. the industry wont go that way in full swing till the 10-6nm, but no reason not to get a head start, hell, in 10 years, you may have the research done, a working model and a fab ready to make them, and if tech is kept in house, no one can use them besides you, meaning they have te design their own, build it, such, just adding to their cost.

granted, this may be impossible for amd to do,
Score
-1
Anonymous
November 23, 2011 5:39:24 AM

It's obvious that they got bought out..
Score
-1
!