Thanks for the info dave Though its still not a product as such, just a design validation it seems. Still, a 28 nm A9 should be bloody fast! I suppose it can easily clock at 1.2 ghz
http://www.globalfoundries.com/newsroom/2010/20100215.aspx
The overall ARM announcements encompass more than just validation of A9, as far as I can see.
It's hard to tell, but I suspect they're hinting that they will license a hard macro of the Cortex-A9 on the GF 28nm process, similar to the 40nm TSMC one they are selling today (going up to 2GHz). Given how much they are emphasing their partnership with GF, I can only assume that is an exclusive deal for 28nm.
That seems logical on first sight, but you're forgetting one thing: hard macros have not been a core competency of ARM in recent times. Where's the Cortex-A8 hard macro? Where's the 90 or 65nm ARM11 hard macro? The 40nm Cortex-A9 hard macro is a new IP category for them, and it's not a massively high volume one.ARM isn't low volume and I'm pretty sure they will offer hard macros on TSMC as well.
at least a year on 40nm with no possibility to really increase transistor on new product is really hurting :S
i realized only now how much :S
at least a year on 40nm with no possibility to really increase transistor on new product is really hurting :S
i realized only now how much :S
Well the density doubling time period is ~2years now a days. So that should be expected.
A preplaced, prerouted template that you can just dump into the layout of your chip.What is a hard macro?
A preplaced, prerouted template that you can just dump into the layout of your chip.
Which means you don't need to spend effort to close timing on it. It usually will have better performance than when you do it yourself.
Your assumptions are very, very wrong.rpg.314 said:I assume tools should be able to close timings on such things without any noticeable human effort.
Your assumptions are very, very wrong.
Closing timing is always a struggle if you're shooting for the best possible performance (which is not necessarily always the case, but it often is for a CPU: look how review sites will always mention the CPU clock speed for the latest and greatest smartphone.)
The default settings of the tools will get you to some particular base level that anyone can reach. After that, it's hard work to squeeze out higher and higher clock speeds.
Note that Apple thought it was worth spending $125M for a company who's prime business was cranking out hard macros...
TSMC can obviously do anything they want, and they're extremely smart about using their position to their advantage. But what ARM is doing here isn't licensing the right to make a hard macro; it's literally designing the hard macro themselves and licensing it to GF's (potential/actual) customers. And I'm saying it's possible that for resource allocation reasons ARM could only choose one foundry for their A9 hard macro on 28nm, and for strategic reasons it'd also make some sense to have selected GF.Then it naturally raises the question why would ARM make a hard macro and license it exclusively to GF. GF making a hard macro out of ARM provided core makes sense. But why would ARM shoot itself in the foot by agreeing to an exclusive hard macro deal. Why wouldn't they let TSMC develop their own hard macros if they wanted to?
Yes.So if I may borrow from the terminology of sw, a synthesizable core is like giving away sw which the customer can compile himself. Modifications are subject to licenses, ofc.
A hard macro is sort of a binary distribution, which has been "compiled" by the vendor using it's own optimizing compiler (aka humans). Right?
See the comment of Arun. They are not preventing anyone to make their own hard macro, it's just that they may not do it themselves. Also, if the hard macros from ARM are based on the synthesizable RTL without major custom datapath design, there's no reason why licensees of the same RTL couldn't get the same results, given enough resources and time.Then it naturally raises the question why would ARM make a hard macro and license it exclusively to GF. GF making a hard macro out of ARM provided core makes sense. But why would ARM shoot itself in the foot by agreeing to an exclusive hard macro deal. Why wouldn't they let TSMC develop their own hard macros if they wanted to?