There's not too much difference in BC and BD in current app IPC but a massive difference in cost, size, power and frequency range, ceteris paribus. You just can't take a BD core and downsize/downclock for the low-end low-power market as too many netizens like to believe - that's not possible. You've got a new Lenovo guy running the show from a company that literally only dealt with Intel processors (1-3 half-hearted BC designs). They scrapped BC and this next years BC based successors 'cus GloFo screwed up big time the past full year and for most of the next destroying a lot of cash/potential for AMD, including not hitting agreed process metrics which meant most of the big players who gave us BC, jumped. I don't really know who the heck is left at AMD (in reasonable capacity) that previously designed a successful high-volume processor. In my mental scrap book - Johnson, Keller, Frank, McGrath, Weber, Olson Glew, Witt, Heye, Favor, Meyer and Burgess - they're all out.
The only two remaining I recall are Christie and Moore, with a different role, and Moore with a failed 2005 architecture to his name - it was always known and designed as a throughput core right since the beginning (when BC also began):http://www.anandtech.com/show/1655http://www.anandtech.com/show/1822
I mean: http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news ... fits-TSMC-
GloFo sources clearly mention no process problems for BD, only for Llano, which they state matches TSMCs Brazos yields.
GloFo being ruined by the AMD contract - I swear, I see Samsung homing in. If they ever took over AMD itself, they could leverage AMDs Fusion capabilities nicely and promptly. Samsung are the numero uno player in the Tablet/TabletPC/Smartphone industry. The race in their segments is basically to achieve higher MHz/Cores/GPU power at equivalent power metrics. Bobcat at 40nm has that (except even lower variants which I'm sure given the market and sales, is easily doable with the design at the same process node).