[Brimstone]

Sony is likely to outsource production of RSX chips to IBM or Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), according to sources at Taiwan contract makers.

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20060221A2006.html


I'm suprised by this news!

[drpepper]

Are you surprised that Sony is outsourcing the fabrication or surprised that IBM and TSMC is chosen to do this?

[Brimstone]

Originally Posted by drpepper

Are you surprised that Sony is outsourcing the fabrication or surprised that IBM and TSMC is chosen to do this?

Outsourcing the fabrication I didn't expect.

[drpepper]

Oh, well, I think Sony has their hands full. Aren't they fabbing the Cell as well? To me I'm not surprised that Sony isn't fabbing the RSX. They seemed more focus on Cell.

[dukmahsik]

they were supposed to do this inhouse to reduce costs... hmm..

[Mmmkay]

I'm guessing these are the same 'Taiwanese contractors' who said in a related digitimes article 2 days ago that the PS3 will be postponed to 'August'.

Seems either digitimes have got themselves and exclusive source, or...

[edit]Also, their source for the "No RSX royalties til May" [which was not actually clear cut from the conference call], is in fact a blog who took the information from another blog.

[Bobbler]

I'm not sure I'd take digitimes reporting that someone else said it could possibly happen (I have no idea who "Realm Media Networks" is) as anything solid.

[Carl B]

RSX outsourcing doesn't seem too likely to me, but then again I trust Digitimes as a source. RSX is not being fabbed on the same lines as Cell, so their concurrent production shouldn't be too big of an issue. Not to mention the lines RSX *would* be produced on have seen 90nm production for some time now on the part of Sony.

So, if it's true, the answer must either lie in the desire for a quick volume ramp or something else.

[Lazy8s]

If true, it would mean that RSX doesn't have heavy customization that only Sony fabs can handle.

[Titanio]

It seems unlikely, unless they're doing it in tandem with in-house production to boost supply.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by Lazy8s

If true, it would mean that RSX doesn't have heavy customization that only Sony fabs can handle.

Well I'm not sure what sort of customizations 'only Sony fabs' could handle anyway. The CMOS 4 process seems the equivelent of it's contemporaries in many respects. But sure, if you mean eDRAM of any sort, I can see where you're coming from then. (as it relates to the 4MB eDRAM theory)

[Joe DeFuria]

To be honest, if RSX is the close cousin of G7x that we expect, it wouldn't make much sense to NOT outsource the chip to fabs that nVidia has a history with.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

To be honest, if RSX is the close cousin of G7x that we expect, it wouldn't make much sense to NOT outsource the chip to fabs that nVidia has a history with.

But what's the point of that though? It's not as if NVidia is handing Sony the chips. I could see a transition period possibly justifying it, but for certain Sony should be responsible for RSX at some point, because otherwise they're just sitting on fab capacity. The only thing I could think is if PS2 EE+GS demand is still high enough to warrant capacity not yet shift over to RSX production.

[Farid]

RSX is a classic 90nm IC on a CMOS process using SOI and Low-K. Nothing that TSMC or IBM couldn't do.

And, I wouldn't be surprised if this news turned true. Sony might need all the chips they can get around the launch period, and since RSX isn't that different from the G70, produced at TSMC, they might indeed ask TSMC to produce some RSXs.
IBM, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be a natural choice for the RSX production.

[Bobbler]

Originally Posted by Titanio

It seems unlikely, unless they're doing it in tandem with in-house production to boost supply.

Could happen, I suppose... IBM is supposed to be helping with initial Cell supply as well.

Who knows though.

I'd like to believe that, since it would likely mean initial supply would likely be solid and could help maintain a steady supply until Sony completely ramps up and initial demand tapers off. Or it could mean that Sony is sucking hard on fabbing at the moment and can't get anything working and is depending completely on IBM and TSMC for both Cell/RSX.

[Bobbler]

Originally Posted by Vysez

RSX is a classic 90nm IC on a CMOS process using SOI and Low-K. Nothing that TSMC or IBM couldn't do.

And, I wouldn't be surprised if this news turned true. Sony might need all the chips they can get around the launch period, and since RSX isn't that different from the G70, produced at TSMC, they might indeed ask TSMC to produce some RSXs.
IBM, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be a natural choice for the RSX production.

A couple questions:

Does TSMC have a SOI line? (I don't have any idea, but I didn't think they did)
Is RSX confirmed SOI? (I thought it was said it wasn't -- I vaguely remember Aaron talking about it)

[Carl B]

I think RSX is in fact *not* SOI. Which is good, because I don't think TSMC has an SOI line either.

[koldfuzion]

I don't think they are necessarily outsourcing everything for RSX production, just outsourcing added capacity to ramp up for launch. The article is a little vague and overly clear on some points (for example it says Sony "will" postpone into August, when "earlier" reports said no such thing--the company spokesperson said they "may" postpone not will, and only if (according to spokeswoman who I also take with a grain of salt) that they can't nail down BRD and HDMI specs.

Btw, off topic for a sec: does anyone have any clue what the stupid hold-up is with locking down the HDMI standard and why that's even an issue/what the fight is about? And what the status/timing is on that front?

[one]

Check out this slide from Semiconductor Business Meeting of Sony Corp. on Dec. 14, 2005.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/info...00007vs87.html

3. Utilize Foundries and internal demand to minimize risk (Aim to achieve full capacity at all times)

Also see this graph for the LSI demand for PS in 2006...
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25243

NVIDIA suggests in 2006 they'll get over 30 million dollars for the royalty of PS3, excluding the RSX dev fee. If the royalty is 5$, NVIDIA expects over 6 million units are going to be manufactured.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

But what's the point of that though? It's not as if NVidia is handing Sony the chips.

The point is lower risk. A lot would depend on exactly what time frame nVidia / Sony was expected to go from design to market. nVidia isn't handing Sony the chips, but nVidia was likely instrumental in bringing the design up to production. If RSX is in fact very similar to G7x, nVidia would already have done much of the engineering work to bring up the RSX at TSMC. Going to another fab just introduces more risk of running into problems.

I could see a transition period possibly justifying it, but for certain Sony should be responsible for RSX at some point...

I agree. IMO, It would make most sense for Sony to bring up RSX on Sony's 65 nm. Phase out TSMC and phase in Sony's chips. You have to go through a redesign anyway, and any potential issues delaying 65 nm are hedged by the fact that you are already producing them at 90nm at TSMC.

The only thing I could think is if PS2 EE+GS demand is still high enough to warrant capacity not yet shift over to RSX production.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because it's in-house, means it's better / cheaper. There are pros and cons to choosing to produce in-house vs. outsourcing. The particular circumstances at the time will tilt favor to one or another.

[ROG27]

Originally Posted by one

Check out this slide from Semiconductor Business Meeting of Sony Corp. on Dec. 14, 2005.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/info...00007vs87.html




Also see this graph for the LSI demand for PS in 2006...
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25243

NVIDIA suggests in 2006 they'll get over 30 million dollars for the royalty of PS3, excluding the RSX dev fee. If the royalty is 5$, NVIDIA expects over 6 million units are going to be manufactured.

Hmmmmmm....how many months would it take to manufacture that many units?

There is no doubt now in my mind that they are manufacturing PS3 parts as we speak.

But that's only assuming a $5 per chip royalty.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

I agree. IMO, It would make most sense for Sony to bring up RSX on Sony's 65 nm. Phase out TSMC and phase in Sony's chips. You have to go through a redesign anyway, and any potential issues delaying 65 nm are hedged by the fact that you are already producing them at 90nm at TSMC.

The move straight to 65nm with TSMC serving for 90nm makes sense; maybe indeed that's what they'll do.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because it's in-house, means it's better / cheaper. There are pros and cons to choosing to produce in-house vs. outsourcing. The particular circumstances at the time will tilt favor to one or another.

Well the larger debate between the pros and cons aside, the fact is that labor costs are a big part of the equation, and it behooves Sony to make the most out of it's fabs and fab staff rather than have them sit idle. Maybe running your own fab isn't always less expensive than outsourcing, but certainly it's less expensive than having idle fab capacity *and* outsourcing.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

Maybe running your own fab isn't always less expensive than outsourcing, but certainly it's less expensive than having idle fab capacity *and* outsourcing.

Sure, for the most part I agree. But you are thinking strictly of manufacturing costs, and not the larger picture.

(Just throwing out a hypothetical here...)

What if Sony had 50% confidence that RSX could roll off their own fabs in time for their launch window, but 95% confidence that outsourcing it to TSMC? In other words, there is likely less risk of time-to-market issues with RSX at TSMC (again, assuming a very similar chip to G7x). What is that "worth?" It may very well be worth even having idle capacity for some period of time. It's all about managing risk....

[karlotta]

yes TSMC has a SOI at 90nm. So does IBM.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Sure, for the most part I agree. But you are thinking strictly of manufacturing costs, and not the larger picture.

(Just throwing out a hypothetical here...)

What if Sony had 50% confidence that RSX could roll off their own fabs in time for their launch window, but 95% confidence that outsourcing it to TSMC? In other words, there is likely less risk of time-to-market issues with RSX at TSMC (again, assuming a very similar chip to G7x). What is that "worth?" It may very well be worth even having idle capacity for some period of time. It's all about managing risk....

Well I never disagreed with you on the 'security' aspect of going to TSMC; you're the one that brought cost into it.

(well, rather set it up to be compared to insourcing)

@Karlotta: IBM obviously - I mean they're practically the vanguard for it. But do you have a link with confirmation of TSMC's SOI capacity?