news amd well have 28 nm gpus out later this year

AMD: We’ll have 28-nm GPUs out later this year

During its latest earnings conference call, AMD let slip a few nuggets of information about its upcoming 28-nm graphics processors. Most notably, the company says it’s committed to having 28-nm GPUs out in the market by the end of the year. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the call, as transcribed by Seeking Alpha:

We also passed several critical milestones in the second quarter as we prepare our next-generation 28-nanometer graphics family. We have working silicon in-house and remain on track to deliver the first members of what we expect will be another industry-leading GPU family to market later this year. We expect to be at the forefront of the GPU industry’s transition to 28-nanometer.

The company also reiterated that it will work with both TSMC and GlobalFoundries on chip production using a 28-nm bulk silicon process. That ought to give it some extra flexibility, especially if 28-nm yields fail to meet expectations at one or both foundry firms.

Recent whispers from the rumor mill have hinted that AMD might have 28-nm GPUs out as early as September, while Nvidia may only be able to follow up with 28-nm GeForces in early 2012. That said, AMD’s official time frame of “later this year” could mean early September just as much as late December. Only time will tell exactly when we can get our hands on the first 28-nm Radeons. (Thanks to X-bit labs for the tip.)

0 responses to “AMD: We’ll have 28-nm GPUs out later this year

  1. I’m betting that Nvidia’s definition of “early 2012” translates to “June 2012” 😛

  2. Ok, how about they also start cranking out 22nm chips next year as well? They’re supposed to introduce new process technologies every [roughly] couple of years (65nm in 2006, 45nm in early 2009, 32nm in early 2011). Since they should stick to 2-year refreshes, 45nm should have been 2008 and 32nm 2010 (maybe 32nm could have been 2010 but perhaps Bobcat and Llano weren’t quite ready yet). If they can pull 22nm off in 2012 they’d be right in line with Intel. Go AMD. Bulldozer has been keeping us waiting long enough. Better compensate for that.

  3. Was I the only one who was bothered by Luke having all kinds of wet dreams about her sister?

  4. [url<][/url<]

  5. No, so you can watch your cute, furry friends on the forest moon die as I crush their insignificant Rebellion!

  6. If the only measure of success is money then AMD Is loosing in the GPU department and winning in the CPU department but product quality would indicate otherwise.

  7. You are correct, however I was mearly referencing the quality of their products. having purchased both their cpu and GPU lines I’m inclined to say that their GPU is far superior and their CPUs also suffer from bad chipset support (from reading tech report reviews and my own experience)

  8. Performance will be above and below 6990s with a lot of rebadging to confuse you as always.

  9. if that happens it will be d 2nd time, AMD is one step ahead of nVIdia. I just hope this GPU leaps ahead from the current crop of GPU’s. Performance on par with the 6990 would be very good!

  10. I’m not the guy who encourages early adoption but sometimes it does pay off (Q6600, Core i7 920, GTX 8800 etc.). Still i hope the performance jump will be significant to warrant it a new series name.

  11. That`s highly probable since BF3 and AMD are working together now, AMD will probably want their latest and greatest before BF3 arrives

  12. Well done, I gave you one as well 🙂

    Come on now slackers, hit that thumb down icon!

  13. AMD CPUs are either expensive to make (SOI) or exceedingly crappy (Brazos). Fusion graphics are oversized (both area and performance) and power consuming for what they are aimed at. They have crap 3D performance at decent resolutions (1920×1080). For gaming, you need a real GPU anyways.

    And the CPUs are slow powerhogs. AMD had one good architecture ten years ago, but they are still using it, while better players have moved on. The way-too-much-hyped BullDozer is already way late, and still nowhere to be seen.

    AMD = gameover. Better luck next time.

  14. Because there is smaller margins in GPU’s. Also TMSC always has issues with yields, which leads to alot of waste, or chips that have to be binned slower than hoped even though they cost the same price to produce. Because the CPU design AMD has used has been around forever in its basic form (tweaked alot each time of course) so that leads to lower production costs.

  15. I do wonder if they’ll be out in time for… DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN BATTLEFIELD 3

  16. Yeah, strange reality. How’d they pull that one they have a respectable market share.

  17. Funnily enough, AMD’s GPU division lost money last quarter while the CPU division made money.

  18. You must be high. Their already cooler gpu’s are going to get even better. At this point, I’d like to switch from my OC’d 460 to a 6870.

  19. They are able to produce cheaper, almost as well performing chips at a lower cost with 1/10 the budget, with good graphics to boot, how does that make them “suck”, for anyone but extreme enthusiasts that spend their entire lives overclocking their rigs in an attempt to top the benchmark charts? They currently aren’t the top dawg on performance (though its not terrible like you insinuate), but aren’t that far behind, and Bulldozer will give them a big boost. Intel hasn’t always been that great at making CPUs, their P4s was a joke, and they held on to them for 7 years, while AMD was always faster, per clock and overall. They even got SLOWER with a process shrink, AMD had to make superior chips before Intel woke up and figured out that GHz is not king. Oh and them Atoms are also crappy, AMD is clear winner here. Sandy Bridge is faster than Llano, but only in CPU performance, Sandy Bridge GFX are crap.

  20. Its amazing to me how well AMD’s GPU division is doing and how badly the CPU division is doing.

  21. yawn. wake me up when the have 22nm cpu’s. maybe amd won’t suck so bad then….

    hahahhahaha you guys are too easy -8! now -15! -27! -33! [b<] look at the fanboys! minusing me even though i'm right!!! you guys are ridiculous! [/b<] AMD cpu's are not as fast as intel. larger, and hotter. the ONLY reason to buy them is because they're cheaper. which, tbh, i'm fine with. "AMD had to make superior chips before Intel woke up and figured out that GHz is not king." and yet amd designed bulldozer to be less quick clock for clock, but be able to crank up the GHZ. i think intel learned, but i'm not sure amd did. I ♥ you Tabo.