28nm @ TSMC: Very expensive or just wafer-limited?

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by AnarchX, Mar 24, 2012.

  1. AnarchX

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    34
    Latest MSRPs of 28nm products are indicating, that 28nm could be 4-times expensive as 40nm comparing costs per mm^2, if the margins are equal to 40nm products.

    Could be this real or is 28nm just wafer-limited and the prices are only so high to secure supply and to shift the margin in direction of manufactures instead of retail.

    What could be a good estimate how expensive 28nm could be?
     
  2. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,796
    Likes Received:
    2,054
    Location:
    Germany
    Linky-link pls?
     
  3. ninelven

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    117
    #3 ninelven, Mar 24, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2012
  4. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
  5. Babel-17

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    245
    "40 percent"?

    http://semimd.com/blog/tag/umc/

     
  6. AnarchX

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    34
  7. Man from Atlantis

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    6
    [​IMG]

    so nv's expecting 28nm costs settle on Q412, october release for biggieK should be ready till then..
     
  8. Megadrive1988

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    148
    Does this put the Maxwell architecture in danger?
     
  9. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    6,710
    Likes Received:
    458
    Intel is the only one really succeeding at shrinks nowadays (for logic, flash and DRAM have less problems). The rest of the semiconductor industry is flailing wildly and praying for EUV power source problems to be finally fixed.
     
  10. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,489
    Likes Received:
    907
    In danger of being late, perhaps, but what else should we worry about?

    Intel is ahead, almost by a full node, and although their transitions are a bit quicker, I'm not sure they're fundamentally different. But they have complete control over both their processes and physical design, which helps, and since everything is internal, you never hear Intel complaining about Intel screwing Intel with poor yields or slow ramp-ups.

    Actually, when it comes to complaining about foundries, NVIDIA seems to be, by far, the most vocal company out there.
     
  11. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    6,710
    Likes Received:
    458
    I'm sure they have problems, but their lead has been expanding ... and given the volume they are always able to ship I don't think slow ramp ups are a big issue for them.

    I wouldn't be surprised if no one but Intel manages to make 22 nm commercially viable until EUV's power source problems are fixed, and I think it's highly unlikely that anyone will get below that with immersion lithography except for Intel.
     
  12. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22

    Yes, they are kind of vocal, customers (like us) are vocal too, because it's obvious we need fair (and low) prices.
    My question- is it really TSMC responsible for this pricing explosion? I mean- they do get the tools and machines from somewhere else, right? Those ones are guilty. ;)

    :???:
     
  13. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,489
    Likes Received:
    907
    I don't know, people at the Common Platform conference 2012 seemed to be pretty optimistic, but then again this is what such conferences are for.

    I'm afraid the main culprit is just physics.
     
  14. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dunno why Nvidia is crying about "fair partnership" and that stuff - if they can't make profitable parts then they need to change what they are doing, ie make smaller parts. That's what AMD has had to do at TSMC since long.

    If Apple or Qualcomm or somebody else is able to pay more for the same wafer then TSMC is gonna take it. Nvidia would take it and not blink an eyelid about "fairness" for their partners so long as they were making money out of it, neither do they think it's unfair to get more wafers than AMD at lower prices either. Do they really think anyone cares?
     
  15. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Because Kepler parts are much larger than GCN parts?

    I think you must have missed the key point of the presentation: the one about the cost cross-over point between different technologies. That doesn't materially change by making your dies a bit smaller.
     
  16. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes?

    The point of the presentation was to cry like a baby over what they deem "unfair". I don't see anyone else crying over it. If they can't afford it any longer the onus is on them to find ways to make it affordable.

    You know their real problem is constantly burning bridges with everyone. After the mauling they gave TSMC over 40nm why would they be surprised that TSMC is raising prices that possibly only Apple and Qualcomm can really afford? If you were TSMC would you be feeling particularly charitable towards Nvidia?

    AMD have stated that they are going to slow down process transitions. You know, adapting? Why does Nvidia just cry and cry over their persecution complex? It's tough for everyone but Nvidia is the ONLY company whining over it.

    They had a chance at GF and blew it - GF would have taken their business in a heartbeat but they flippantly disregarded them as "AMD's fab". Nvidia's problem is they actually believe that TSMC is *their* fab, but its not. They are no more important than anyone else who is after TSMC's extremely highly sought-after manufacturing capability.
     
  17. ninelven

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    117
    So you are saying 300 > 365 ???
     
  18. Man from Atlantis

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yeah if the projected trend continues you'll have to pay same price for 100mm2@20nm and 200mm2@28nm.. And it'll keep doubling for next nodes
     
  19. ninelven

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    117
    Exactly, if transistor density doubles, but cost/transistor remains constant... you have a real problem in the not too distant future (at least if you want to actually increase performance).
     
  20. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I'm saying that Nvidia's planned performance chip was 296mm2 compared to AMD's planned performance chip at 212mm2.

    Their planned enthusiast chip will have a similar size increase over AMD's. They are extremely lucky that Tahiti is such a mediocre performer else they'd be in a horrible position.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...