ITPC 2005 (and some other Cell-related events)

[Carl B]

I didn't say MS would be using the 65nm process so soon, only that TMSC will be. IF MS choses to go with 65nm, they will have that option before Sony, but I rather suspect you'll find that the process switch doesn't translate into instant profits.

There is an investment that has to be paid off before you'll get a significant price drop, and in Sony's case they have a huge investment while MS is going through TMSC who can spread that cost out across many different chip types.

Sony's fabs will be running at capacity, I'm not too worried about that. I don't know what you mean by 'instant profits' either; we're talking about lowering costs, which basically doubling the dies per wafer certainly will do (after sorting out start-up hiccups).

And as for what chips would be using it, I would like to point out that every modern electronics device of any kind in the world uses one or more chips. Everything from a digital watch or cellphone to a car or radio uses chips, and they aren't all made by RAM makers or Intel either.

Wow. Ok onetime you may be shocked but yeah, I know that. My post was asking what chips other than Intel's and RAM would be on 65nm this year, not ever. Obviously everyone wants their chips on smaller processes as soon as those become available to them.

 

[Bobbler]

I'd be very surprised if TSMC got any of its lines to 65nm before the end of the year. Haven't they always sort of been a bit late on that? Only chip company I know that will have any 65nm lines open and usuable this year is Intel -- they are usually well ahead of everyone else in that respect.

Am I crazy and my memory is failing, or is TSMC really this current with their usable process lines? (very well is possible)

 

[Powderkeg]

Sony's fabs will be running at capacity, I'm not too worried about that. I don't know what you mean by 'instant profits' either; we're talking about lowering costs, which basically doubling the dies per wafer certainly will do (after sorting out start-up hiccups).

What about the hiring and training of staff? What about the cost of equipment? What about tooling and retooling costs? And what about those hiccups? Do you think all of that is free and they can just start producing chips without having to worry about recouping a high profit margin to cover the investment?

MS doesn't have to worry about those expenses, and TMSC can distrubute them across a wider range of products than Sony can.

Wow. Ok onetime you may be shocked but yeah, I know that. My post was asking what chips other than Intel's and RAM would be on 65nm this year, not ever. Obviously everyone wants their chips on smaller processes as soon as those become available to them.

Who cares what chips they are? What does that matter? The point is the process is working.

Also there seems to be some question as to if Sony's 90nm EE+GS chips are really 90nm or 130nm, so I wouldn't be too quick to trust 65nm claims when there is some question about 90nm being a reality.

 

[mckmas8808]

What about the hiring and training of staff? What about the cost of equipment? What about tooling and retooling costs? And what about those hiccups? Do you think all of that is free and they can just start producing chips without having to worry about recouping a high profit margin to cover the investment?

MS doesn't have to worry about those expenses, and TMSC can distrubute them across a wider range of products than Sony can.

Didn't Sony already pay for most of this stuff though? I thought that's why everyone kept saying Sony has spent 3 billion dollars on fabs?

Also there seems to be some question as to if Sony's 90nm EE+GS chips are really 90nm or 130nm, so I wouldn't be too quick to trust 65nm claims when there is some question about 90nm being a reality

WHAT?!?

 

[Carl B]

What about the hiring and training of staff? What about the cost of equipment? What about tooling and retooling costs? And what about those hiccups? Do you think all of that is free and they can just start producing chips without having to worry about recouping a high profit margin to cover the investment?

MS doesn't have to worry about those expenses, and TMSC can distrubute them across a wider range of products than Sony can.

What do you mean worry about those expenses? Given a fab, both running at capacity, generally one would be safe to assume the company contracting a fab is going to pay cost-plus rather than just cost alone. I mean that makes sense, right? As for the equipment, it's already there and paid for. Sony will be launching the fab at 65nm; no sooner no later.

Now - I expect TSMC's labor costs will be less than Sony's, so an edge there for them. At the same time when viewing Sony's investment in this fab, remember it's not just for PS3 though - this fab will be producing for a decade or so, and will be able to switch production to whatever chips Sony is focused on at that time.

Who cares what chips they are? What does that matter? The point is the process is working.

Also there seems to be some question as to if Sony's 90nm EE+GS chips are really 90nm or 130nm, so I wouldn't be too quick to trust 65nm claims when there is some question about 90nm being a reality.

The process is 'working' but it's not producing. Hell a lot of companies have 65nm fabs in validation right now.

As for the EE+GS, yes there were those rumors, but that's the past. It's fully 90nm I assure you. And the drama was over a stated die size of 84mm^2 or something vs an actual die size of 90mm^2. Something stupid like that.