Intel bringing 14nm fab online in 2013?

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by kyetech, Feb 20, 2011.

  1. kyetech

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its not clear if this is going to be a 14nm capable fab (at some point) which starts out on another process first, or if this going to be 14nm off the bat in 2013.

    But Intel is targeting 22nm by end of 2011. So 14nm seems aggressive for 2013?

    What are your thoughts?

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380625,00.asp
    http://newsroom.intel.com/community...site-highlights-education-jobs-and-innovation

    If they pull this off then its going to lead to some monster chips in 2014. I believe things must level off after that surely? I mean every other company just seems to be struggling so much to get new processes out the door.
     
  2. AlphaWolf

    AlphaWolf Specious Misanthrope
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    9,336
    Likes Received:
    1,530
    Location:
    Treading Water
    It's not completely out of line with previous roadmaps (although I had seen 16nm, not 14).
     
  3. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    /
    Should be 16nm, otherwise intel are also going off the itrs roadmap.
     
  4. Erinyes

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    276
    The 14 nm node was confirmed In the Intel Investor meeting the other day, launching two years after 22nm as expected.

    But was the node changed sometime this year/last year? AFAIK the next node after 22nm was supposed to be 16nm. Did they have a sudden change in plans? Even TSMC's next node after 20nm(i suppose they arent doing a 22nm node?) is going to be 14nm afaik.

    Now comparing size,

    (16*16)/(22*22) = 53%

    (14*14)/(22*22) = 40%

    The first figure of 53% is in line with all the process node advances in the recent past with density roughly doubling every node. The second figure of 40% is a departure from that pattern.
     
  5. Arun

    Arun Unknown.
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    UK
    They renamed 16nm to 14nm. The design rules were finalised before they decided to rename it AFAIK. This is very different from TSMC's 40G process which *does* have higher density than 45LP (which is a real process used in most of Qualcomm's chips and at least one from NXP's TV SoC group now part of Trident).

    However, given that Intel 32nm's density is as good as TSMC's 28nm one, it's a very defensible position. Why make your process lead appear smaller than it really is? On the other hand, TSMC's 14nm process is very likely to use e-beam or EUV, whereas Intel's will still be dual immersion. So if that's the case, TSMC really might have a density advantage and it'd have been fairer to keep calling it 16nm. Not that being fair has anything to do with this kind of marketing, mind you.
     
  6. Humus

    Humus Crazy coder
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
  7. 3dcgi

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,493
    Likes Received:
    474
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/shrinking-possibilities

    The article goes on to discuss why memory process size differs from logic.

     
  8. Erinyes

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    276
    Wow I had no idea 45LP was ever used :eek: Why didnt Qualcomm just go with 40G?

    Rename? I would have understood if it was GF but for Intel its highly unusual is it not?

    And its not like they're a fab where they need to be doing marketing :???: (And even if they were a fab im sure the people designing chips wouldnt be dumb enough to fall for such marketing)

    Btw this is OT but what is GF's next process node? 22nm or are they going straight to 20nm?
     
  9. Arun

    Arun Unknown.
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    UK
    I assume you meant 40LP. They were supposed to start with 45LP and shrink to 40LP later, but they didn't and even their LTE chip is 45nm. One possible exception is the latest-generation dual-core MSM8x20 which uses triple gate oxide, and I doubt that's even available on 45nm. But who knows...

    My guess: Atom. It's very important for them to highlight just how significant the process gap is there both for public marketing and to convince OEMs they can be competitive.

    IIRC (could be wrong), it's 22nm SOI for AMD and 20nm Bulk for everyone else (ala 32/28nm today). Unfortunately, it's still not Fully Depleted SOI.
     
  10. Erinyes

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    276
    I dont know too much abt the semiconductor industry in general, just what i read on the internet. But i thought Tegra 2 was on 40G or am i mistaken? Thats why i suggested 40G for Qualcomm

    And from what i understood you're saying MSM 8X60 is on 40LPG?

    That might well be the case, after all they accelerated the 14nm Atom to at least a year ahead of the schedule they've been following for Atom so far. ARM will be on 20nm by that time(and Project Denver also will be out by then?) but Intel will be ahead by like two years at that point

    Thats what i remember reading as well, but havent read any updates on GF's plans for quite a while now so was just wondering.
     
  11. Arun

    Arun Unknown.
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    UK
    Tegra 2 and Kal-El are both on 40LPG, MSM8x60 is either on 40LPG or on an unannounced 45LPG process (which wouldn't make much sense). Interestingly, triple gate oxide is going away on 28nm in favour of greater gate Vt variations which are cheaper to implement, especially on a High-K process. This is the case for both TSMC 28HPM and GF 28HPP.
     
  12. dkanter

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    20
    Humus - that's exactly correct. It used to be that a Xnm process was denser than an (x+k)nm process. However, that's no longer really totally true.

    TSMC's 40nm is denser and faster than their 45nm process, but it may not be denser than IBM's 45nm process.

    In one of my articles, I highlighted this trend:
    http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT072109003617&p=11

    You can see in the first chart that Intel's 45nm process is literally faster than most other 28nm/32nm processes. OTOH, their SRAM density isn't quite as impressive as TSMC's, although this may be a function of the type of comparison being made as I discuss below.

    Basically, density tends to scale reasonable well with the marketing name of the process, but not the speed.

    David
     
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...