Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagath  Its not that easy.
I suggest you read this article: AnandTech: The RV870 Story: AMD Showing up to the Fight to get an idea of what die shrinking entails from a design standpoint
The TLDR is this. Switching nodes usually means a complete redesign of the chip. Shrinking components down means rerunning tracing, redesigning circuit pathing, moving components and die areas around, etc. Or, it means designing the chip in the first place with scalability to the next node in mind. Intel didn't bother with it. Why? Because its a lot easier to build a monolithic eight core chip on a mature known process, then hope and pray all 8 cores work on a new process you just started on...
But I'm sure they are hiring guys like you to fix their business model for them. Actually, I heard they just fired all their PhD engineers with 10+ years of schooling, and 5+ years of job experience to open a slot up!  |
What you described here deals with the details of engineering and product process. What I said was that you could have the same architecture chip on different production processes. Redesigning circuit paths, etc doesn't mean it's a new architecture.
And to be honest, I don't care what the problems are to move to 32nm because I'm an end user. If I was an electrical engineer in that field I might have cared but, it's not my problem. I am not an engineer and all I care about is getting more performance for my dollars spent.
Nor do I have the desire to enter this field of work...so I don't see why you're getting all personal.
We all "wish" for stuff. Sometimes the manufacturers put out impressive new products and sometimes they fall short of consumers' expectations or desires. That's life.