4 ms·

Yes. The A11 Bionic CPU Apple is shipping in the newly announced iPhones is on a 10nm min-feature-size process built by TSMC. They announced revenue from the pr

by lvh 9y ago

Yes. The A11 Bionic CPU Apple is shipping in the newly announced iPhones is on a 10nm min-feature-size process built by TSMC. They announced revenue from the process this summer. Samsung is ahead of TSMC by a few more months; they've been shipping wafers since March of this year.

dmoy 9y ago
Are Samsung and TSMC's 10nm equivalent to Intel's 10nm? I vaguely recall from studying semiconductors that different companies will call things the same when in fact one is substantially smaller and harder. No idea if that is the case here.
- lvh 9y ago
  The 10nm moniker comes from ITRS (International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors). You may be thinking of e.g. memory technology versus CPUs versus FPGAs or something -- but in this case they're roughly comparable. It's true that the specifics are arguably less ambitious (fin height and pitch, gate pitch... are all tighter) -- but that's only if you compare Intel's marketing material to TSMC and Samsung's actually extant wafers :)
  - dmoy 9y ago
    Right but samsung's current 10nm process only meets ITRS's 14nm guidelines... looking at tables it appears as though Samsung's 10nm is about the same (actually worse) as Intel's 14nm.
neilmovva 9y ago
Intel's "10nm" has roughly twice the transistor density vs. Samsung/TSMC "10nm", so I wouldn't compare based on the advertised process names.
- lvh 9y ago
  That's true, but only if Intel's _proposed_ 10nm specs matches what they ship. They haven't shipped anything, that's the problem.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  What about ryzen, I forgot the size and which foundry they use.
_cerv 9y ago
Doesn't 10nm mean different things to Intel, TSMC, and Samsung?
ju-st 9y ago
7nm or 10nm are purely marketing terms. According to Wikipedia, Samsungs and TSMCs "7nm" process is comparably to Intels 10nm. And their 10nm process is only slightly better than Intels 14nm process. Don't let marketing fool you. Samsung and TSMC aren't really ahead of Intel.
- lvh 9y ago
  Can you specify the reference? If you're talking about feature sizes like fin height/pitch, tor pitch, IC... sort-of -- but only if you believe Intel's marketing material on what they are going to ship. Because they haven't shipped anything, they haven't had to commit to what that process _actually means_.
  - mscrivo 9y ago
    There are transistor densities for each of the manufacturer's processes here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11850/intel-displays-10nm-wafer-commits-to-10nm-falcon-mesa-fpgas https://www.anandtech.com/show/11850/intel-displays-10nm-waf...
    - runeks 9y ago
      According to this, Samsung and TSMC are ahead of Intel, since these two have shipped their “10nm” chips which are ahead of Intel’s top-of-the-line shipped chips in transistor density. When/if Intel ships their 10nm chips, however, the leader position in transistor density would be regained by Intel (by around a factor of two!). Unless TSMC/Samsung manage to squeeze out something better than their current tech before then.

by lvh 9y ago

dmoy 9y ago

Are Samsung and TSMC's 10nm equivalent to Intel's 10nm? I vaguely recall from studying semiconductors that different companies will call things the same when in fact one is substantially smaller and harder. No idea if that is the case here.

lvh 9y ago
The 10nm moniker comes from ITRS (International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors). You may be thinking of e.g. memory technology versus CPUs versus FPGAs or something -- but in this case they're roughly comparable. It's true that the specifics are arguably less ambitious (fin height and pitch, gate pitch... are all tighter) -- but that's only if you compare Intel's marketing material to TSMC and Samsung's actually extant wafers :)
- dmoy 9y ago
  Right but samsung's current 10nm process only meets ITRS's 14nm guidelines... looking at tables it appears as though Samsung's 10nm is about the same (actually worse) as Intel's 14nm.

neilmovva 9y ago

Intel's "10nm" has roughly twice the transistor density vs. Samsung/TSMC "10nm", so I wouldn't compare based on the advertised process names.

lvh 9y ago
That's true, but only if Intel's _proposed_ 10nm specs matches what they ship. They haven't shipped anything, that's the problem.
agumonkey 9y ago
What about ryzen, I forgot the size and which foundry they use.

_cerv 9y ago

Doesn't 10nm mean different things to Intel, TSMC, and Samsung?

ju-st 9y ago

7nm or 10nm are purely marketing terms. According to Wikipedia, Samsungs and TSMCs "7nm" process is comparably to Intels 10nm. And their 10nm process is only slightly better than Intels 14nm process. Don't let marketing fool you. Samsung and TSMC aren't really ahead of Intel.

lvh 9y ago
Can you specify the reference? If you're talking about feature sizes like fin height/pitch, tor pitch, IC... sort-of -- but only if you believe Intel's marketing material on what they are going to ship. Because they haven't shipped anything, they haven't had to commit to what that process _actually means_.
- mscrivo 9y ago
  There are transistor densities for each of the manufacturer's processes here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11850/intel-displays-10nm-wafer-commits-to-10nm-falcon-mesa-fpgas https://www.anandtech.com/show/11850/intel-displays-10nm-waf...
  - runeks 9y ago
    According to this, Samsung and TSMC are ahead of Intel, since these two have shipped their “10nm” chips which are ahead of Intel’s top-of-the-line shipped chips in transistor density. When/if Intel ships their 10nm chips, however, the leader position in transistor density would be regained by Intel (by around a factor of two!). Unless TSMC/Samsung manage to squeeze out something better than their current tech before then.