3 ms·
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two. A lot depends on how well TSMC, Samsung, and Intel execute. Intel's roadmap has had I
by mdasen 4y ago
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two.
A lot depends on how well TSMC, Samsung, and Intel execute. Intel's roadmap has had Intel 4 happening in 2023, but it's possible that Meteor Lake will be pushed back a bit and it's looking like Intel won't be making high-end Meteor Lake processors. Intel also has RibbonFET and 20A on its roadmap for 2024/2025. If TSMC can't meet Apple's 3nm demand in 2023, it seems likely that only Apple will have 3nm processors in late 2023. Given that it was 2 years between Apple shipping 5nm and AMD shipping 5nm, it's not out of the question that AMD wouldn't get 3nm until late 2025 - and TSMC wasn't having trouble meeting Apple's 5nm demand in 2020. That leaves a ton of time for Intel to close the gap.
If TSMC is having so much yield trouble with 3nm, it seems reasonable to think that TSMC might not be able to keep up its advantage. Of course, one could also argue that Intel's roadmap might simply be bluster. That's why I think it will be interesting to see how this will play out. TSMC has done very well over the past decade while Intel has faltered. If Intel is able to get RibbonFET and 20A out in the next couple years, Intel might regain a nice lead.
If Intel can get its 20A out in 2024, it seems like that would put them solidly in the lead again and put a damper on both AMD (generally) and data-centers moving to ARM. AMD has seen a huge rise in part due to Intel's fab issues offering them a huge lead. ARM processors have also seen an opening via Intel's fab weakness. If Intel gets back to having superior fabrication, we might get to a market where Intel takes back the gains that ARM and AMD have seen in some areas.
But a lot of this depends on how well companies execute over the next couple years. Roadmaps are one thing. Processors in people's hands are another.
- samus 4y agoWe are getting closer and closer to physical limitations of current microchip technology. Even TSMC starting to slip schedules is not really surprising.
- cubefox 4y agoWhen they are really getting close to physical limits, generational improvements will also be smaller. Then it is probably easier for others to get close TSMC. Currently being (e.g.) two years behind TSMC means being also substantially behind in performance. But when improvements slow down, such a two-year lag may not be so substantial anymore in terms of performance.
- faeriechangling 4y agoDon’t forget the slowing down of deflation in technology prices. Getting the same magnitude of improvement costs more and more and more R&D money.
- 2bitencryption 4y agoCan someone help me understand something about these "roadmaps", the roadmaps that go out 5+ years and define the path of transistor shrinkage? What I don't understand is... what's preventing a chip fab from leapfrogging a transistor size? Why must there be a gradual process, planned year by year? If one manufacturer has even a modest lead, can they use this lead to invest in two generations down the line, to keep their lead cemented? Does the technology that supports X nm transistors become an input to building X-1 nm transistors? Or is each new generation like starting all over again?
- 988747 4y ago[dead]
- opwieurposiu 4y agoIn the 70s and 80s, these leapfrog events would sometimes happen. One fab would find a way to get a huge lead and others would go bust. A chip would have 10 or so masks and a wafer might take a week to go through the fab before you could fully test it. Nowadays there are 80+ masks and a wafer takes 4+ months to go through the fab. There may be 100k process parameters to tune, and if any one of those gets too far off your yield goes to zero. Finding process improvements is more difficult with these slow iterations and everything is so tiny now it is a miracle the chips work at all. Gradual improvement is all that is left.