5 ms·

It seems like Intel is working on everything except a 10nm transistor. I'd invest in TSMC if I had money.

by jostmey 10y ago

wolfgke 10y ago
Perhaps Intel sees the high cost that a 10nm process will have: Intel is perhaps in an arms race with other vendors as (particularly) TSMC, Samsung and Global Foundries. If they offer older processes for a much cheaper price, Intel will have difficulties justifying much higher prices for 10nm. So Intel perhaps considers that other things (even if most of them will fail) will have a higher rate of return in the future.
eloff 10y ago
"TSMC’s 10nm shrink would retain a 20nm minimum feature size, while its 7nm would deliver a 14nm minimum feature size (10/20 and 7/14, respectively)."[1] Intel is the only company with a "true" 14nm and 10nm process. Considering the number of people that don't seem to realize TSMC 10nm != Intel 10nm, Intel should change their marketing. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/computing/228806-arm-announces-new-artemis-cpu-core-first-10nm-test-chip-built-at-tsmc http://www.extremetech.com/computing/228806-arm-announces-ne...
- jostmey 10y ago
  Thanks for the correction
- DiabloD3 10y ago
  Intel has similar issues. When 22nm came out (for Ivy Bridge and Haswell), replacing 28/32nm, the density of the chip did not go up 45%, but the feature size dropped, thus allowing better power efficiency and lower waste heat. When 14nm came out (for Broadwell, Skylake, and now the upcoming Kaby Lake), again, the density of the chip did not go up 57%, but, again, better power efficiency and lower waste heat was a noticable improvement. Chips are not getting faster realistically because of this. The largest problem that people should be focusing on is not the difference between fab techs (since GloFo and TSMC != Intel anyways), the problem people should be focusing on is, until last year, the largest power user (in desktops, workstations, game machines, and some laptops), the GPU itself, was still fabbed at 28nm by both Nvidia and AMD. Also, on the server side, the SoCs for HBAs and NICs, the SoCs for drives, are still being fabbed at both 28nm and 45nm. It isn't that TSMC and GloFo are slow to bring new fab sizes to market, it is that they are prohibitively expensive early on due to volume. As new fabs are constructed, only when "important" chips stop using old fabs do NICs, HBAs, drive controllers, other tertiary chips finally move down to the next size. And to play devil's advocate, unless you're doing insanity-tier stuff (four, six 40/100gbit ethernet ports; three, four many-port HBA; several dozen drives; "zero" power wireless SoCs running off button cells; high heat tolerance industrial hardware), you don't NEED the improvement in thermals and power usage; only CPUs and GPUs and other math-/parallel-heavy chips need to continually chase that.
- ksec 10y ago
  The same is true as well for Intel, which isn't really 14nm either. But intel's FinFET is also way ahead of TSMC. So even at the same node, Intel is always one technologically step ahead. And if I remember correctly, TSMC has always wanted to label their 16nm as 20nm ( Good old honest Morris Chang ) , but Samsung's marketing started calling their implementation 14nm, so TSMC had to remarket their 20nm as 16nm to compete.

It seems like Intel is working on everything except a 10nm transistor. I'd invest in TSMC if I had money.

by jostmey 10y ago

It seems like Intel is working on everything except a 10nm transistor. I'd invest in TSMC if I had money.

Perhaps Intel sees the high cost that a 10nm process will have: Intel is perhaps in an arms race with other vendors as (particularly) TSMC, Samsung and Global Foundries. If they offer older processes for a much cheaper price, Intel will have difficulties justifying much higher prices for 10nm. So Intel perhaps considers that other things (even if most of them will fail) will have a higher rate of return in the future.

eloff 10y ago

"TSMC’s 10nm shrink would retain a 20nm minimum feature size, while its 7nm would deliver a 14nm minimum feature size (10/20 and 7/14, respectively)."[1] Intel is the only company with a "true" 14nm and 10nm process. Considering the number of people that don't seem to realize TSMC 10nm != Intel 10nm, Intel should change their marketing. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/computing/228806-arm-announces-new-artemis-cpu-core-first-10nm-test-chip-built-at-tsmc http://www.extremetech.com/computing/228806-arm-announces-ne...

jostmey 10y ago
Thanks for the correction
DiabloD3 10y ago
Intel has similar issues. When 22nm came out (for Ivy Bridge and Haswell), replacing 28/32nm, the density of the chip did not go up 45%, but the feature size dropped, thus allowing better power efficiency and lower waste heat. When 14nm came out (for Broadwell, Skylake, and now the upcoming Kaby Lake), again, the density of the chip did not go up 57%, but, again, better power efficiency and lower waste heat was a noticable improvement. Chips are not getting faster realistically because of this. The largest problem that people should be focusing on is not the difference between fab techs (since GloFo and TSMC != Intel anyways), the problem people should be focusing on is, until last year, the largest power user (in desktops, workstations, game machines, and some laptops), the GPU itself, was still fabbed at 28nm by both Nvidia and AMD. Also, on the server side, the SoCs for HBAs and NICs, the SoCs for drives, are still being fabbed at both 28nm and 45nm. It isn't that TSMC and GloFo are slow to bring new fab sizes to market, it is that they are prohibitively expensive early on due to volume. As new fabs are constructed, only when "important" chips stop using old fabs do NICs, HBAs, drive controllers, other tertiary chips finally move down to the next size. And to play devil's advocate, unless you're doing insanity-tier stuff (four, six 40/100gbit ethernet ports; three, four many-port HBA; several dozen drives; "zero" power wireless SoCs running off button cells; high heat tolerance industrial hardware), you don't NEED the improvement in thermals and power usage; only CPUs and GPUs and other math-/parallel-heavy chips need to continually chase that.
ksec 10y ago
The same is true as well for Intel, which isn't really 14nm either. But intel's FinFET is also way ahead of TSMC. So even at the same node, Intel is always one technologically step ahead. And if I remember correctly, TSMC has always wanted to label their 16nm as 20nm ( Good old honest Morris Chang ) , but Samsung's marketing started calling their implementation 14nm, so TSMC had to remarket their 20nm as 16nm to compete.