In the conference call that followed its earnings release last week, AMD provided an update on its upcoming Seattle chip, a server-bound processor with ARM cores. The firm says Seattle is on track for a release in the last quarter of the year. Here's the transcript of AMD CEO Rory Read's statement, courtesy of the helpful folks at SeekingAlpha:
We have also reached a significant milestone in our ambidextrous strategy. We have introduced Seattle, our first 64-bit ARM server processor and the industry's first at 28-nanometer technology, positioning AMD as the only SOC provider to bridge the x86 and ARM ecosystems for server applications. We are excited to announce that we have started sampling Seattle this last quarter and plan to ship in the fourth quarter of 2014.
When AMD first announced Seattle last June, it said the chip would sample in the first half of this year and launch in the second half. So far, then, the company seems to be keeping to that schedule.
Seattle, for the unacquainted, is a system on a chip aimed at low-power, single-processor servers. Last we heard, Seattle was set to bear the Opteron A1100 brand and to feature four to eight ARM Cortex-A57 cores, up to 4MB of L2 cache, up to 8MB of L3 cache, support for up to 128GB of DDR4 ECC memory, and all kinds of built-in connectivity, from PCI Express Gen3 to 10GbE. There's also been talk of "extensive offload engines for better power efficiency and reduced CPU loading" as well as "server caliber encryption."
|Biostar's Z270 boards race to the finish||19|
|Google RAISR upsamples thumbnails for massive bandwidth savings||49|
|Synology RT2600ac offers up speedy Wi-Fi and tight controls||5|
|Deals of the week: a gaming monitor and system components||16|
|Nintendo reveals Switch launch date, pricing, and initial line-up||60|
|Consumer Reports approves MacBook Pros after retesting||38|
|Report: Desktop PC market shows signs of stabilization||9|
|Chnano RGB LED gloves put some flash on your fingers||42|
|Samsung Galaxy Note 7 pre-flight warnings to end||15|
|So they should never have reported that they're getting poor, hugely-varying results and instead hide inconvenient facts for Apple's sake?||+59|