14nm GF volume production with low double-digit yields? Apparently yes.

[jhu]

People keep saying this, but has there been any official word from AMD to say no Excavator(or anything else) for AM3+? Or are people just going on rumours?

How long are you willing to wait?

 

[III-V]

It's quite pathetic, really. Here goes my rant. TL;DR in title (according to the interview, GF HVM is actually in H1, contrary to what WCCF Tech says)

What's pathetic, exactly? The whole 14/16nm situation? I'm not sure that's the adjective I'd use, but it's definitely unfortunate that this generation of nodes have come to this.

It's easy to understand why this is happening, though.

Each year, public interest in semiconductor fabrication has grown. I'd imagine the industry was pretty well hidden from the public eye in the past... but as their revenues grow, largely thanks to the success of smartphones and other mobile devices, this is just the beginning. People want to know more about how their hardware works, where it comes from... and the fabrication process used, particularly for the primary SoC or ASIC in their device, plays a big part of their end-user experience. So people are paying attention to that, especially with our growing utilization of the internet. The industry really isn't something you can learn about or be exposed to through other media.

So, with that in mind, it's reasonable to observe Samsung, TSMC, Intel, et al. to be making silly marketing moves like implying that their next generation process has smaller geometries. There's ever-growing benefit in doing so, as they have larger audiences watching them. As such, expect this to be the new norm. FWIW, Intel's not innocent in this either.

If you're talking about their yields being pathetic... Well... That's to be expected. They're low, and they're supposed to be. They'll go up over time, and they'll eventually deliver their 14nm process in a meaningful form, probably late as usual.

What I think is a more pressing concern at hand, in regards to GloFo, is their cash supply. Think about who owns them (literally or figuratively)... Abu Dhabi. Guess where they get their money from? Oil. Guess what's plummeting in value? Oil. In some crazy roundabout way, our cheaper gas at the pump threatens GloFo's viability, seeing as they are not sustainable without the funds of those who make their wealth from oil.

 

[ehume]

So who killed Kennedy?...some truths never get out.

But LBJ became President. That truth did get out, and we are all stuck with the consequences.

In the end, it doesn't matter who killed Kennedy. In the end, all the verbiage about 14/16 nm doesn't matter; performance and cost matter.

 

[witeken]

FWIW, Intel's not innocent in this either.

Completely off-topic, but it's an interesting quote from an Intel CPU architect in the 90s that people like NTMBK might enjoy.

0:26:43 PE: And what changed at point?

0:26:46 BC: Well Craig's not Andy, I mean he had a different way of thinking and doing things, Craig, I don't want it to sound cynical but I always sound cynical when I talk about him because I had such a bumpy relationship with him. I don't think he felt like he needed anything I could tell him, and it wasn't just me, I wasn't taking this personally. I never once got the same feeling I got with Andy that my inputs were being seriously and politely considered, and then a decision would be made that included my inputs.

0:27:21 PE: Yes.

0:27:22 BC: That never happened. Instead, for example five Intel fellows including me went to visit Craig Barrett in June of 98 with the same Itanium story, that Itanium was not going to be able to deliver what was being promised. The positioning of Itanium relative to the x86 line is wrong, because x86 is going to better than you think and Itanium is going to be worse and they're going to meet in the middle. We're being forced to put a gap in the product lines between Itanium and x86 to try to boost the prospects for Itanium. There's a gap there now that AMD is going to drive a truck through, they're going to, what do you think they're going to hit, they're going to go right after that hole" which in fact they did. It didn't take any deep insight to see all of these things, but Craig essentially got really mad at us, kicked us out of his office and said (and this is a direct quote) "I don't pay you to bring me bad news, I pay you to go make my plans work out".

(source: http://newsletter.sigmicro.org/sigmicro-oral-history-transcripts/Bob-Colwell-Transcript.pdf)

 

[NTMBK]

Nice quote, thanks I love little tidbits like that; its crazy to think that these multi billion dollar companies make so many mistakes because of bad attitudes and personality clashes, but it happens all the time. It's a nice reminder that a company is just a bunch of people, at the end of the day.

 

[Idontcare]

What I think is a more pressing concern at hand, in regards to GloFo, is their cash supply. Think about who owns them (literally or figuratively)... Abu Dhabi. Guess where they get their money from? Oil. Guess what's plummeting in value? Oil. In some crazy roundabout way, our cheaper gas at the pump threatens GloFo's viability, seeing as they are not sustainable without the funds of those who make their wealth from oil.

Low oil prices leaves consumers with more disposable income than they would have had otherwise (lower fuel prices, electricity, heating, etc versus what those consumables would have been priced at were oil itself priced higher than it presently is), which means GF stands to benefit from higher demand for semiconductor based electronic gadgets that consumers are more likely to buy now that they have more disposable income leftover from not spending on fossil-fuel related consumables.

Lower oil prices should be a boon for GF provided GF has fabless customers that are fielding products (fabbed at GF) that end users want to purchase.

If GF doesn't have those kinds of fabless customers then oil prices are the least of GloFo's problems.

 

[NTMBK]

Re: oil- low prices are a deliberate tactic by the cartel to put the frackers out of business. The Saudis and UAE can still make a profit at lower prices, the frackers can't.

 

[liahos1]

Re: oil- low prices are a deliberate tactic by the cartel to put the frackers out of business. The Saudis and UAE can still make a profit at lower prices, the frackers can't.

this is off topic but true. SA's margincal cost of production is among the lowest in the world ~40 dollars. but for them to balance their budgets oil needs to be ~85. Still though, its not like if Saudi Arabia is running a deficit the world isn't going to finance it. Cheap crude is what everyone wants except the producers with high marginal costs

 

[ShintaiDK]

Re: oil- low prices are a deliberate tactic by the cartel to put the frackers out of business. The Saudis and UAE can still make a profit at lower prices, the frackers can't.

And without fracking we dont destroy farmland and pollute the ground water. Its a win/win for everyone.

Fracking is the 50-60s chemical industry all over if anyone remember those, else they still get reminded now and then.

Gonna be interesting to see if the consumers actually spend, or if they are unable/unwilling. We will see in Q4/Q1 results. I have a feeling it wont be much at all if any.

 

[krumme]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/259...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

I stopped reading gf marketing cartoons 4 years back. But Witeken give yourself some rest reading this pr stuff - you must be getting blue eyes looking at all that SECOND generation 14nm intel ppt stuff. But thanx for the work
Your old link is q3 conference call. So its not excactly brand new. Add the source. And the weak speak "major". We know nada. Your low double digit is still nothing but asumption. Did i overlook something - what is new?

 

[Maxima1]

And without fracking we dont destroy farmland and pollute the ground water. Its a win/win for everyone.

Fracking is the 50-60s chemical industry all over if anyone remember those, else they still get reminded now and then.

No, it's not. The benefit far exceeds any faulty wells that contaminate some groundwater. This almost goes right up there with the "fracking causes earthquakes" argument.

The only argument that has merit is the global warming one, but you didn't even mention it.

 

[NTMBK]

No, it's not. The benefit far exceeds any faulty wells that contaminate some groundwater. This almost goes right up there with the "fracking causes earthquakes" argument.

The only argument that has merit is the global warming one, but you didn't even mention it.

What benefits? Putting off the inevitable end of the oil economy for 10 years, versus poisoning the land for millennia?

Sorry, last post on oil, I don't want to derail any further.

 

[ElFenix]

meh. the general public doesn't give a rat's behind. the general public cares about getting useful battery life and performance.

 

[Maxima1]

What benefits? Putting off the inevitable end of the oil economy for 10 years, versus poisoning the land for millennia?

Sorry, last post on oil, I don't want to derail any further.

Well, it's not just oil. Gas is the cheapest source for electricity currently. The shale gas revolution is replacing coal. It's a lot better for health than the coal, and CO2 emissions is significantly lower. Though, if we assume that global warming is bad, then you can put a price on emissions. A ban on fracking is just asinine when the emerging green technologies still need to mature. A switch doesn't happen overnight. It takes a long time especially considering politics and developing countries. If the US wasn't producing all that oil (even higher than SA), the prices of everything would be higher. Period. The global economy would be stunted. As a extreme example, look at Ukraine. They get raped by Russia because of the Euro weenies. Europe itself basically exports its fossil fuel industry elsewhere e.g. China or ME, so they're not all clean themselves either.

There's EASY solutions, though. But even the green environmentalists are a hindrance to them. Here, geothermal is so plentiful, but they argue it causes earthquakes, yet they should love it because CO2 emissions is negligible, and it's cheap. Additionally, they think nuclear is bad, solar will kill off an endangered tortoise, etc. They love to tie up the projects in the courts and all of it results in less than ideal energy infrastructure.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well, it's not just oil. Gas is the cheapest source for electricity currently. The shale gas revolution is replacing coal. It's a lot better for health than the coal, and CO2 emissions is significantly lower. Though, if we assume that global warming is bad, then you can put a price on emissions. A ban on fracking is just asinine when the emerging green technologies still need to mature. A switch doesn't happen overnight. It takes a long time especially considering politics and developing countries. If the US wasn't producing all that oil (even higher than SA), the prices of everything would be higher. Period. The global economy would be stunted. As a extreme example, look at Ukraine. They get raped by Russia because of the Euro weenies. Europe itself basically exports its fossil fuel industry elsewhere e.g. China or ME, so they're not all clean themselves either.

There's EASY solutions, though. But even the green environmentalists are a hindrance to them. Here, geothermal is so plentiful, but they argue it causes earthquakes, yet they should love it because CO2 emissions is negligible, and it's cheap. Additionally, they think nuclear is bad, solar will kill off an endangered tortoise, etc. They love to tie up the projects in the courts and all of it results in less than ideal energy infrastructure.

Co2 is just 1 part. You forget all the rest. While coal in itself releases tonens of poison in terms of uranium, arsenic, chrome etc. Its absolutely nothing compared to fracking. And you destroy not only the land, but also the water table for ages ahead. If they did fracking in the salt deserts or something similar barren. Then sure thing. But thats not what they do, they usually destroy prime farmland and freshwater resources.

 

[krumme]

Low oil prices leaves consumers with more disposable income than they would have had otherwise (lower fuel prices, electricity, heating, etc versus what those consumables would have been priced at were oil itself priced higher than it presently is), which means GF stands to benefit from higher demand for semiconductor based electronic gadgets that consumers are more likely to buy now that they have more disposable income leftover from not spending on fossil-fuel related consumables.

Lower oil prices should be a boon for GF provided GF has fabless customers that are fielding products (fabbed at GF) that end users want to purchase.

If GF doesn't have those kinds of fabless customers then oil prices are the least of GloFo's problems.

Mubadala is a political controlled organization. Business rules apply differently. What about this perspective:
The future of oilprices gets more insecure and - the - families can lose their welth. Its therefore urgent to find other income quicker = boost investment in gf
??
But in my eyes it looks like they have plenty of money even if oil prices collaps even more its just how they use them.

 

[Maxima1]

Co2 is just 1 part. You forget all the rest. While coal in itself releases tonens of poison in terms of uranium, arsenic, chrome etc. Its absolutely nothing compared to fracking. And you destroy not only the land, but also the water table for ages ahead. If they did fracking in the salt deserts or something similar barren. Then sure thing. But thats not what they do, they usually destroy prime farmland and freshwater resources.

What's your source? Coal is far worse. You can see the Asian Brown Cloud all over Asia. We know that mercury levels in ocean fish have increased due to coal emissions in China. We know that natural gas is a gas while coal has many impurities when it's burned. You're not making much sense.

 

[Idontcare]

Co2 is just 1 part. You forget all the rest. While coal in itself releases tonens of poison in terms of uranium, arsenic, chrome etc. Its absolutely nothing compared to fracking. And you destroy not only the land, but also the water table for ages ahead. If they did fracking in the salt deserts or something similar barren. Then sure thing. But thats not what they do, they usually destroy prime farmland and freshwater resources.

Before moving to Taiwan I lived in Pennsylvania (one of the 50 states in the USA for readers who might not know), and will live there again someday. In the meantime I have family that continues to live in Pennsylvania, specifically on farmland, multiple in fact.

And they are smack in the middle of the fracking fruckus, well aware of the horror stories (which are not stories, they truly are a reality) of fellow farmers who can no longer feed their dairy cows the grass that grows in their fields or allow their animals (chickens, pigs, etc) to drink the water that is pumped from 100+ year old wells on their farmland because of what happened literally the month the frackers moved in and "leased" the surrounding areas for fracking.

When it comes to fracking the risks and damage is clear to me from a first-person personal level, not from a distance by reading articles about it on the internet or from watching news reports on TV. Billions of people can easily be swayed to be apathetic to the issue, happy to save a buck or two on gas versus worrying about preserving the very land they never see with their own eyes but which creates the food they need to eat tomorrow.

This is nowhere more self-evident than the farmers who do accept the fracking leases themselves. They do it for greed because they too would rather have a dollar in their pocket today and not worry about tomorrow until tomorrow gets here.

IMO it is a loosing battle. Humanity is simply too stupid and too selfish of a species to ever put the benefit of the many above the benefit of themselves. We will extinct ourselves, no question, merely a question of what else we will take down with us in the process.

Mubadala is a political controlled organization. Business rules apply differently. What about this perspective:
The future of oilprices gets more insecure and - the - families can lose their welth. Its therefore urgent to find other income quicker = boost investment in gf
??
But in my eyes it looks like they have plenty of money even if oil prices collaps even more its just how they use them.

The families that control mubadala and the oil wealth are not worried about themselves and their present day wealth. They are worried about what their families will be doing in 100+ years when they have nothing left but their accumulated warchest and nothing left to create jobs in their country outside of hoping for a sand exporting business.

In many ways they are a lot more forward looking than many western nations who are doing little more than creating a large debt for their future generations with little concern for seeding industries that will create stable long-lasting job growth.

We all can't become Uber drivers. Somebody has to be willing and able to create the products that the rest of plan to kick back and consume while living off our pensions or retirement savings

 

[ShintaiDK]

Before moving to Taiwan I lived in Pennsylvania (one of the 50 states in the USA for readers who might not know), and will live there again someday. In the meantime I have family that continues to live in Pennsylvania, specifically on farmland, multiple in fact.

And they are smack in the middle of the fracking fruckus, well aware of the horror stories (which are not stories, they truly are a reality) of fellow farmers who can no longer feed their dairy cows the grass that grows in their fields or allow their animals (chickens, pigs, etc) to drink the water that is pumped from 100+ year old wells on their farmland because of what happened literally the month the frackers moved in and "leased" the surrounding areas for fracking.

When it comes to fracking the risks and damage is clear to me from a first-person personal level, not from a distance by reading articles about it on the internet or from watching news reports on TV. Billions of people can easily be swayed to be apathetic to the issue, happy to save a buck or two on gas versus worrying about preserving the very land they never see with their own eyes but which creates the food they need to eat tomorrow.

This is nowhere more self-evident than the farmers who do accept the fracking leases themselves. They do it for greed because they too would rather have a dollar in their pocket today and not worry about tomorrow until tomorrow gets here.

IMO it is a loosing battle. Humanity is simply too stupid and too selfish of a species to ever put the benefit of the many above the benefit of themselves. We will extinct ourselves, no question, merely a question of what else we will take down with us in the process.

Its the classic pee in the pants solution as always picked due to greed/short term goals.

Australia is doing something similar. They want to mine minerals under what is the absolute best and most pristine farmland (with twice a year harvest) there with their open pit mines. Just to leave it destroyed forever afterwards. The problem is, you cant live on minerals, gas or money. You need food.

At least countries around the world are stopping one by one with the lust for shale gas. After seeing the apocalyptic destuction. In Denmark we are close to a permanent ban outside test wells, alone just due to the radioactive poisoning that it brings from the shale. Everything else it brings of bad stuff is on top.

 

[Burpo]

OMG.. a discussion about low yields of 14nm chips turns into a fracking fracus?
WTF? D:

 

[Maxima1]

When it comes to fracking the risks and damage is clear to me from a first-person personal level, not from a distance by reading articles about it on the internet or from watching news reports on TV. Billions of people can easily be swayed to be apathetic to the issue, happy to save a buck or two on gas versus worrying about preserving the very land they never see with their own eyes but which creates the food they need to eat tomorrow.

This is nowhere more self-evident than the farmers who do accept the fracking leases themselves. They do it for greed because they too would rather have a dollar in their pocket today and not worry about tomorrow until tomorrow gets here.

IMO it is a loosing battle. Humanity is simply too stupid and too selfish of a species to ever put the benefit of the many above the benefit of themselves. We will extinct ourselves, no question, merely a question of what else we will take down with us in the process.

It's a losing battle because people don't know how to access risks, costs, and benefits. The big elephant in the room in regards to food and water is the depletion rate of the groundwater. Agriculture makes up ~80-90% of water usage. Everyone loves meat and it ends up being subsidized. Meat production requires more crops which leads to more water.

"The US and the UK are among the few countries whose meat consumption levels have remained relatively stable. Surprisingly, it is not the US with the largest consumption (124.8), but Denmark with a shocking 145.9kg per person in 2002. "

Shintai is part of the problem of straining land and water sources assuming he is a meat eater.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/08/31/germany-insane-or-just-plain-stupid/

This right here shows the similar thought process going on in this thread.

In many ways they are a lot more forward looking than many western nations who are doing little more than creating a large debt for their future generations with little concern for seeding industries that will create stable long-lasting job growth.

Europe went for austerity. That stinks. It's detrimental to many. Remember, in economics, a government that issues its own currency is hardly analogous to a household with a credit card. So that's how we have places like Japan with such low interest rates yet their public debt is far above GDP. Countries with good monetary policy shouldn't have issues with employment either. You can have full employment with far less industry and technology, after all.

The problem is, you cant live on minerals, gas or money. You need food.

Right. A rich country can buy the land.

http://www.economist.com/node/13692889

SA went belly up by proving to the world they could grow wheat. They're phasing out wheat production and other water-intensive crops. They've used up the majority of their fossil water sources in a very short amount of time.

OMG.. a discussion about low yields of 14nm chips turns into a fracking fracus?

:awe:

 

[mikk]

“We have confirmed through numerous sources that over the last two weeks Global Foundries has stopped deliveries of tools for 14nm to its fab and instead is having the tools housed at a nearby warehouse,” writes Maire.


“We hear that tool makers are told that the fab facilities are not ready and it sounds like a one to two quarter delay,” writes Maire. “Some tool makers are speculating that the delay could also be related to financial issues or yield issues or a host of other odd rumors.”

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...es-short-interest-moves-apple-chip-jockeying/
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141230PD212.html


Globalfoundries 14nm has been delayed apparently. Not really a surprise, probably not the last delay this round.

 

[Headfoot]

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...es-short-interest-moves-apple-chip-jockeying/
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141230PD212.html


Globalfoundries 14nm has been delayed apparently. Not really a surprise, probably not the last delay this round.

I wonder what is going on here; dont they have incoming theoretical 14nm machinery from the IBM fab acquisitions? Seems they have a collision of duplicate machinery at some nodes due to the dual IBM acquisition + Samsung alignment happening at the same time

 

[cytg111]

"The US and the UK are among the few countries whose meat consumption levels have remained relatively stable. Surprisingly, it is not the US with the largest consumption (124.8), but Denmark with a shocking 145.9kg per person in 2002. "

- Well, as an institution, we've pretty much eradicated poverty so your figures may just reflect the fact that no-one in denmark goes to bed hungry (except bad boys and girls of course).
Loosing battle, perhaps, if you keep sending troops into the slaughterhouse expecting a different result from yesterday, then yes i'd say it is a loosing battle. What do we need? Clean free energy. Put all those clima-change money into hard science, fusion, fission, whatever.. and hope to god(the spaghetti monster) that we have reached an point where it is feasable. The CO2 quotas and whatnot is a joke imo, there is no way in hell your gonna get underdeveloped countries to "underdevelop some more" - cause we might be worried about our grandchildrens drinking water. That is just crazy. We need to provide at better cheaper cleaner alternative. Science.

 

[el etro]

Globafoundries denying 14nm delay rumors:

http://blog.timesunion.com/business...of-delay-in-samsung-partnership-untrue/62956/