[Trawler]

The Inquirer has a story up based on this article on digitimes:

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...pages=A2&seq=7

In addition, TSMC and UMC can output 20% more good die than IBM on each 8-inch wafer during actual production and are more capable of mass production on 12-inch wafers

Nvidia, on the other hand, plans to produce some of its NV36 graphics chips at TSMC’s 12-inch fab

The article mentions IBM are having problems due to their low-k procedure. I was under the impression that nv weren't producing silicon using low-k? Or am I missing the point entirely?


Either way, interesting news, espicially considering past events.

Edit: I see Dave beat me to the punch in the other thread. Apologies![/b]

[radar1200gs]

You'll see nVidia shifting back to TSMC right about the time piglets sprout wings.

I'll simply point out that the 5700 is an IBM manufactured chip using a relatively basic FSG low-k process and is currently available to consumers in quantity. Meanwhile ATi is using TSMC for the 9600XT using Black Diamond as the Low-K process - the 9600XT is currently AWOL...

[Dave Baumann]

5700 is FSG only, not Low-k. The report is suggesting that IBM may even be having yield issues with that.

[radar1200gs]

Fabs often refer to FSG as a rudimentary Low-K process - TSMC certainly did with NV35 which also used FSG.

As for yield issues, simply take a look on retail shelves...

[nelg]

Originally Posted by radar1200gs

Fabs often refer to FSG as a rudimentary Low-K process - TSMC certainly did with NV35 which also used FSG.

As for yield issues, simply take a look on retail shelves...

Maybe that has more to do with sales

[Dave Baumann]

No stock of either at Komplett or Dabs.

But availablilty doesn't equate to good yeilds (or as good as other foundries).

[Trawler]

Originally Posted by radar1200gs

You'll see nVidia shifting back to TSMC right about the time piglets sprout wings.

Are you suggesting the article is incorrect?

Nvidia and Xilinx will increase the proportion of their outsourcing to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) and decrease their orders to IBM Microelectronics in the fourth quarter

[Richthofen]

this article is pure crap nothing more.

Listen to what M.Harah had to say about TSMCs and IBMs manufacturing processes during his presentation @the Salamon Smith Barney Tech Conference.
Listen to what the management had to say yesterday during the conference call.

The pricing of NV36 is pretty
agressive. Still Nvidia expects to increase margings especially because of that product. Availability is high and the launch was only a few weeks ago.

NV36 is produced @IBM on 0.13 FSG technology and on 300mm wafers.

I would say yields and costs are perfect and a lot better than what Nvidia expected and of course better than @ TSMC.

[reever]

I would say yields and costs are perfect and a lot better than what Nvidia expected and of course better than @ TSMC.

Which is only according to Nvidia. All other TSMC customers and TSMC seem to say the opposite of what Nvidia says regarding TSMC and UMC

[radar1200gs]

What constitutes a good process for one chip design may be a disasterous process for another chip design.

The experiences of the other manufacturers are irrelevant to nVidia - its their design and how it performs on TSMC or IBM's processes that matter to nVidia.

[asicnewbie]

Nvidia and Xilinx will increase the proportion of their outsourcing to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) and decrease their orders to IBM Microelectronics in the fourth quarter

Minor correction. Xilinx manufactures its FPGAs at UMC and IBM, not TSMC. Xilinx did announce it is shifting more 300mm production to UMC.

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030922S0027 - IBM acknowledges stumble in low-K

^^^ I found this quote particularly hilarious.

Most recently, an online Business Week magazine article quoted Willem Roelandts, the president of Xilinx Inc., as saying that while IBM is strong in technology, it needs to improve its manufacturing skills and move faster. [bold]A Xilinx spokesman later said Roelandts' remarks were taken out of context.[/bold] Xilinx is a high-profile IBM foundry customer.

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20031020S0071 - After manufacturing stumble, Xilinx ready for run

This article isn't directly relevant to the topic on hand (0.13u IBM vs TSMC vs UMC), but it explains Xilinx's motivation behind picking UMC for producing their first 90nm FPGAs. At the time of UMC's (tape-out earlier this year), UMC's 300mm wafer capacity exceeded IBM, and this factor outweighed IBM's superior technology.

http://All other TSMC customers and ...g TSMC and UMC

One of my coworkers claims that TSMC and UMC are roughly equal in terms of process reliability (wafer-lot to wafer-lot variation.) For many customers (but not all), the choice between TSMC and UMC boils down to political factors and pricing. In the past, UMC persued a 'virtual IDM' business-model (remember UMC's product-line used to include everything from DRAMs, SRAMs, x86-compatible CPUs, to 486 core-logic chipsets and VGA chips!) All things being equal: given a choice between 'T' and 'U', where 'U' is an IDM but 'T' isn't, customers prefer T.

But all things aren't equal. TSMC and UMC have their individual niche strengths. (UMC's customers accounts are heavily biased toward RF/wireless mixed-signal processes.) And UMC discounts their wafer-processing ~20% (compared to the TSMC equivalent)...or maybe it's TSMC that charges a +20% premium compared to UMC (because TSMC knows it can and still book its fabs.)

The experiences of the other manufacturers are irrelevant to nVidia - its their design and how it performs on TSMC or IBM's processes that matter to nVidia.

Exactly. And I might add, with billion-dollar companies like NVidia, ATI, Nintendo, Sony, etc. do with their contracting-arrangements is way out of line of the industry norm. Any of them can make new ways of doing business. Analyzing their behavior in terms of 'the average ASIC company' or 'the average electronics firm' is sheer non-sense. Example: When Microsoft announced they would be handling the manufacturing accounts for the primary chips in the Xbox (CPU, GPU, chipset, etc.), I thoguht to myself "Gee, Microsoft has ZERO previous ASIC experience with a project of this complexity...what a fine time to start with this project!" This operational-shift defies traditional engineering risk-management. If I read those announcements right, Microsoft's next console will be either a spectacular success or a spectacular failure (in terms of mfg cost.)