Exclusive: Qualcomm to Use Samsung’s Foundries for Its Next High-End Chip

liahos1

Senior member
Aug 28, 2013
573
45
91
Exclusive: Qualcomm to Use Samsung’s Foundries for Its Next High-End Chip

Breaking from past practice, Qualcomm plans to have its next-generation Snapdragon 820 processor manufactured at Samsung’s chip-making plants, according to sources familiar with Qualcomm’s roadmap and Samsung’s foundry operations.

Historically, Qualcomm has manufactured its leading-edge chips largely at contract chip maker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. as well as other foundries. However, Samsung has had an edge over TSMC and other chip plants because it is cranking out chips using thinner 14-nanometer wiring, compared with 20-nanometer transistors at TSMC. All other things being equal, thinner wires mean smaller and less costly chips as well as better battery performance.

Qualcomm saw its current high-end chip, the Snapdragon 810, shut out of Samsung’s new Galaxy S6 in favor of Samsung’s homegrown Exynos chip. As a result, Qualcomm had to cut its financial outlook for the year even as the 810 won a spot in other flagship products, such as the latest HTC One and LG Flex 2.

The Snapdragon 820 is the next generation of Qualcomm’s top-end chip family, designed for the 2016 flagship models from the leading phone makers. Qualcomm is hoping that the move to use Samsung’s factories will help it win back business for the next Galaxy S flagship, the sources said. Qualcomm declined to comment on its manufacturing plans for the chip. A Samsung representative was not immediately available for comment.

As previously reported by Re/code, Apple also plans to make its high-end chip, the A9, at Samsung’s plants.

“Samsung’s fabs for mobile processors are the hottest thing going,” said longtime chip industry analyst Patrick Moorhead. “This is a great example of ‘co-opetition.’”

The deals with Qualcomm and Apple mean more revenue and profit for Samsung’s chip-making arm. In theory, though, Samsung appears to be taking away an advantage from its own phones — given that currently only its Exynos processor is using the 14-nanometer process.

However, in order to use its own processor for the Galaxy S6, Samsung had to use a separate modem chip, which adds back cost. The Snapdragon 820 will have its own built-in LTE modem as well as a custom-designed Qualcomm processor and graphics core. That could ultimately help Samsung compete against Apple, even if it has to scale back use of its own Exynos.

Qualcomm’s decision also could be bad news for Taiwan’s TSMC, which has been getting the bulk of Qualcomm’s high-end chip-making business. Still, both Apple and Samsung may tap TSMC as a secondary source to ensure capacity, said Moorhead, president of Moor Insights and Strategy.

Qualcomm said in January that the Snapdragon 820 would reach the sampling stage later this year and use a more advanced manufacturing process, but it did not elaborate at the time. Qualcomm also plans to move back to its own processing core rather than using an outside design as it did with the 810, doing so as part of an effort to rapidly get a 64-bit core into the market.

the punishment starts in 2h. First apple now qcom then nvda and mediatek. All worship at the Altar of Samsung lol

http://recode.net/2015/04/20/exclus...amsungs-foundries-for-its-next-high-end-chip/
 
Last edited:

Mondozei

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2013
1,043
41
86
It says re/code in the linked text but is it behind paywall(hence the massive quote)? If it is then what OP just did was legally questionable.
 

Mondozei

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2013
1,043
41
86
By the way, what a flop Snapdragon 810 was. Glad I didn't upgrade this year. Then again I doubt I'll need it next year either (Windows Phone FTW).
 

liahos1

Senior member
Aug 28, 2013
573
45
91
OP, Apple had to move some A9 production to TSMC thanks to capacity shortage at Samsung and poor yields at GF (of all places, lulz). So TSMC isn't completely screwed.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...tsmc-for-30-of-a9-chip-orders-for-next-iphone

(thanks Guest1)

that is just a rumor. Qualcomm has been explicit in moving business to Samsung as has NVDA.

Yields at Glofo are pure speculation but given it is near copy exact of what Samsung is doing in austin and korea I dont anticipate there being an issue with them hitting there end of Q2 HVM target.
 

Guest1

Member
Aug 11, 2014
28
0
0
OP, Apple had to move some A9 production to TSMC thanks to capacity shortage at Samsung and poor yields at GF (of all places, lulz). So TSMC isn't completely screwed.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...tsmc-for-30-of-a9-chip-orders-for-next-iphone

(thanks Guest1)

You're welcome.

that is just a rumor. Qualcomm has been explicit in moving business to Samsung as has NVDA.

Yields at Glofo are pure speculation but given it is near copy exact of what Samsung is doing in austin and korea I dont anticipate there being an issue with them hitting there end of Q2 HVM target.

Right so if yields are in the 30's for GloFo they are the same for Samsung. I am assuming that they have a copy exact model for their fabs like Intel of course. It's a simple math problem say you need 1,000 AP if the wafer is capable of yielding 1,000 AP's than a 100% yield would only require 1 wafer. Say the yield is only 20% than you need 5 wafers. But in the end you are still delivering 1,000 units but with a much higher cost and longer lead time. The end consumer has no clue about yields so just because we see the AP shipping doesn't mean the yields are good. I speculated the tech sharing agreement was the only way to launch in such a short time a bleeding edge Process node with very bad yields and it looks like I was right. The ARMy is so hellbent to "beat" Intel at the process node game they are willing to launch nodes at inferior yields and rename their process nodes to trick those who are not in the know. In the end we will see when things launch. HVM can be defined however the mfg wants to define it. Samsung is shipping millions of AP with their S6 models sounds pretty high volume to me just the yields aren't good. I am sure there will be samples made for Qualcomm and anyone else who wants to use Samsung 14 nm but they won't be taking delivery until next year. The iPhone and S6 will be taking all available capacity until the end of the year especially since Samsung didn't even anticipate the strong demand for the S6 which means their forecasts were way off. The yield rates will improve over time as it would behoove them financially to do so but for now it is what it is. I have a feeling that TSM will probably get the A9 iPad volume while Samsung gets the A9 phone volume that way Apple won't have to support two different AP's in the same product.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,761
12,772
136
I dunno, are you sure Samsung's stuck at 30% yields as well? This is GlobalFoundries we're talking about here. If anyone can get lower yields while cloning someone else's process, it's GF!

Okay, snide remarks aside, the link I pasted above had this to say:

Specifically, GlobalFoundries' "A9" chip yield rate is said to currently be at about 30 percent yield rate, which is well below what Kuo said is a mass-production "basic requirement" of 50 percent.

It also said this:

Another factor in the decision, according to Kuo, are concerns from Apple that Samsung's chipmaking business may not be able to supply enough of its 14-nanometer design. That's because initial sales of the Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge have apparently been greater than expected, and may pull 14-nanometer orders away from Apple.

If Apple is operating under a strong preference for a minimum yield rate of 50%, and if Samsung is also suffering from the same poor yields, then we'd be reading about how Apple pulled A9 production from Samsung AND GF thanks to both firms suffering from poor yields on 14nm. As it stands, the reason why Apple went to GF in the first place was not to escape yield issues, but to avoid competing with Samsung over fab capacity being eaten up by unexpectedly-high sales of Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge phones.

Finally, Samsung having yield issues would have negatively-affected pricing and availability on the aforementioned S6 phones, and that would have spawned a number of alarmist articles on its own.
 

Ghaaandi

Junior Member
Dec 31, 2014
2
0
16
I think IDC recently posted in another thread that GF are not doing a copy exact. Unfortunately my search foo is not good enough to find that post but maybe he will post anyway.
 

Nothingness

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2013
3,294
2,362
136
I think IDC recently posted in another thread that GF are not doing a copy exact. Unfortunately my search foo is not good enough to find that post but maybe he will post anyway.
I'm afraid I was one who mistakenly thought it was the case, and IDC corrected me.
 

Guest1

Member
Aug 11, 2014
28
0
0
I dunno, are you sure Samsung's stuck at 30% yields as well? This is GlobalFoundries we're talking about here. If anyone can get lower yields while cloning someone else's process, it's GF!

Okay, snide remarks aside, the link I pasted above had this to say:



It also said this:



If Apple is operating under a strong preference for a minimum yield rate of 50%, and if Samsung is also suffering from the same poor yields, then we'd be reading about how Apple pulled A9 production from Samsung AND GF thanks to both firms suffering from poor yields on 14nm. As it stands, the reason why Apple went to GF in the first place was not to escape yield issues, but to avoid competing with Samsung over fab capacity being eaten up by unexpectedly-high sales of Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge phones.

Finally, Samsung having yield issues would have negatively-affected pricing and availability on the aforementioned S6 phones, and that would have spawned a number of alarmist articles on its own.

I suspect the whole point of giving GF access to 14nm was to pick up the slack of low yields due to launching this node prematurely. Low yields no problem, just run more wafers and charge your clients by the wafer and not on a per chip basis. I am not in the semi space but we do work with factories overseas so I am sure the same basic principals apply. Yields are the closest guarded secret of any fab the only way we can have a clue is on the availability of a product. It could be Samsung only have enough to service the Galaxy S6 but not the A9 and that's why Apple was handed over to GF, because do we honestly believe GF could win Apple business on their own? I have a feeling the A9 is going to cost Apple a pretty penny given the problems of 14nm! Unless of course they went with TSM at 16nm and their supposed good yields. That would have required a whole other design team but I am sure Apple had their contingencies in place.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,761
12,772
136
I suspect the whole point of giving GF access to 14nm was to pick up the slack of low yields due to launching this node prematurely. Low yields no problem, just run more wafers and charge your clients by the wafer and not on a per chip basis. I am not in the semi space but we do work with factories overseas so I am sure the same basic principals apply. Yields are the closest guarded secret of any fab the only way we can have a clue is on the availability of a product. It could be Samsung only have enough to service the Galaxy S6 but not the A9 and that's why Apple was handed over to GF, because do we honestly believe GF could win Apple business on their own? I have a feeling the A9 is going to cost Apple a pretty penny given the problems of 14nm! Unless of course they went with TSM at 16nm and their supposed good yields. That would have required a whole other design team but I am sure Apple had their contingencies in place.

The theory makes sense, but again, you'd think we'd see some signs of yield problems from Samsung's 14nm if that were really the case . . . they can only cover up so much. Eventually some vendor or customer would squeel about it.

And no, I don't think Apple was dying to fab their chips at GF. That was obviously not their first choice.

Qualcomm hinted that Samsung's 14nm yields are low on its call tonight.

Oh, well there you go. That's potentially a big story in-and-of-itself.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
I suspect the whole point of giving GF access to 14nm was to pick up the slack of low yields due to launching this node prematurely. Low yields no problem, just run more wafers and charge your clients by the wafer and not on a per chip basis. I am not in the semi space but we do work with factories overseas so I am sure the same basic principals apply. Yields are the closest guarded secret of any fab the only way we can have a clue is on the availability of a product. It could be Samsung only have enough to service the Galaxy S6 but not the A9 and that's why Apple was handed over to GF, because do we honestly believe GF could win Apple business on their own? I have a feeling the A9 is going to cost Apple a pretty penny given the problems of 14nm! Unless of course they went with TSM at 16nm and their supposed good yields. That would have required a whole other design team but I am sure Apple had their contingencies in place.

I don't have a way of personally verifying whether or not the following is true, no personal interaction with either Cuomo or Gore, but the Samsung guys say the reason Samsung licensed 14nm to GF was because Cuomo was worried that the Malta fab was going to sit pretty much empty for the next 4 years as 14XM was languishing in development at IBM. To avoid the political fallout that could ensue from tax-subsidizing the Malta fab, Cuomo sought out his buddy Gore (Apple Board of Directors) to see if there was something that could be done to make GF more appealing to Apple at 14nm (and thus possibly make good on seeing those jobs materialize in NY).

This series of convos led to the conclusion that GF needed to become a Samsung licensee, as Gore knew what Samsung had in store for 14nm as Apple was busy in A9 negotiations at the time. But Samsung was not interested in sharing the contract, the revenue, and the profits with GF (a competitor). This led to Gore getting personally involved (so the Samsung guys tell it) in the licensing negotiations between Samsung and GF, applying a little stick-and-carrot with the 14nm contracts. And so Samsung relented, licensed the process, and the rest is history.

Why did Apple get involved? Not just because Gore wanted to throw his governor friend a bone, but also because Apple (again, according to the Korean Samsung guys) was really keen to get some, or all, of the A9 production done inside the USA. (no idea if this was strategic for marketing or strategic for the finance guys) Apparently Samsung Austin is big, but not big enough to make that happen on its own.

Anyways, I've heard this same tale from multiple individuals within Samsung and the supply-chain ecosystem, so I am inclined to believe it. But, like I said, unlike most of what I post here this is one case where I really have no inside connections to the source (Cuomo or Gore) to verify what other people are saying.

Qualcomm hinted that Samsung's 14nm yields are low on its call tonight.

The yields are not so great, but still better than GF.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,761
12,772
136
Why did Apple get involved? Not just because Gore wanted to throw his governor friend a bone, but also because Apple (again, according to the Korean Samsung guys) was really keen to get some, or all, of the A9 production done inside the USA.

Ha ha! That didn't work out now did it? Silly GF!
 

Guest1

Member
Aug 11, 2014
28
0
0
Qualcomm hinted that Samsung's 14nm yields are low on its call tonight.

If Qualcomm QCT wants to exist they really need to buy GF so they can compete with the likes of Samsung and Intel. The writing is on the wall the only company that can continue to exist in the fabless model is Apple. Maybe Apple should buy GF. They have the money to spruce that company up and be independent.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
I don't have a way of personally verifying whether or not the following is true, no personal interaction with either Cuomo or Gore, but the Samsung guys say the reason Samsung licensed 14nm to GF was because Cuomo was worried that the Malta fab was going to sit pretty much empty for the next 4 years as 14XM was languishing in development at IBM. To avoid the political fallout that could ensue from tax-subsidizing the Malta fab, Cuomo sought out his buddy Gore (Apple Board of Directors) to see if there was something that could be done to make GF more appealing to Apple at 14nm (and thus possibly make good on seeing those jobs materialize in NY).

This series of convos led to the conclusion that GF needed to become a Samsung licensee, as Gore knew what Samsung had in store for 14nm as Apple was busy in A9 negotiations at the time. But Samsung was not interested in sharing the contract, the revenue, and the profits with GF (a competitor). This led to Gore getting personally involved (so the Samsung guys tell it) in the licensing negotiations between Samsung and GF, applying a little stick-and-carrot with the 14nm contracts. And so Samsung relented, licensed the process, and the rest is history.

Why did Apple get involved? Not just because Gore wanted to throw his governor friend a bone, but also because Apple (again, according to the Korean Samsung guys) was really keen to get some, or all, of the A9 production done inside the USA. (no idea if this was strategic for marketing or strategic for the finance guys) Apparently Samsung Austin is big, but not big enough to make that happen on its own.

Anyways, I've heard this same tale from multiple individuals within Samsung and the supply-chain ecosystem, so I am inclined to believe it. But, like I said, unlike most of what I post here this is one case where I really have no inside connections to the source (Cuomo or Gore) to verify what other people are saying.



The yields are not so great, but still better than GF.

the IP is safer being fabbed in the US. I don't recall where I heard this but I'm pretty sure it was in relation to Apple chips from a source closely related to Apple.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,761
12,772
136
If Qualcomm QCT wants to exist they really need to buy GF so they can compete with the likes of Samsung and Intel. The writing is on the wall the only company that can continue to exist in the fabless model is Apple. Maybe Apple should buy GF. They have the money to spruce that company up and be independent.

Eh, GF is basically in bed with Samsung now (and will continue to be so long as they are dependent on Samsung's process R&D).
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,956
1,595
136
I don't have a way of personally verifying whether or not the following is true, no personal interaction with either Cuomo or Gore, but the Samsung guys say the reason Samsung licensed 14nm to GF was because Cuomo was worried that the Malta fab was going to sit pretty much empty for the next 4 years as 14XM was languishing in development at IBM. To avoid the political fallout that could ensue from tax-subsidizing the Malta fab, Cuomo sought out his buddy Gore (Apple Board of Directors) to see if there was something that could be done to make GF more appealing to Apple at 14nm (and thus possibly make good on seeing those jobs materialize in NY).

This series of convos led to the conclusion that GF needed to become a Samsung licensee, as Gore knew what Samsung had in store for 14nm as Apple was busy in A9 negotiations at the time. But Samsung was not interested in sharing the contract, the revenue, and the profits with GF (a competitor). This led to Gore getting personally involved (so the Samsung guys tell it) in the licensing negotiations between Samsung and GF, applying a little stick-and-carrot with the 14nm contracts. And so Samsung relented, licensed the process, and the rest is history.

Why did Apple get involved? Not just because Gore wanted to throw his governor friend a bone, but also because Apple (again, according to the Korean Samsung guys) was really keen to get some, or all, of the A9 production done inside the USA. (no idea if this was strategic for marketing or strategic for the finance guys) Apparently Samsung Austin is big, but not big enough to make that happen on its own.

Anyways, I've heard this same tale from multiple individuals within Samsung and the supply-chain ecosystem, so I am inclined to believe it. But, like I said, unlike most of what I post here this is one case where I really have no inside connections to the source (Cuomo or Gore) to verify what other people are saying.



The yields are not so great, but still better than GF.

Freaking story if true ! Lol

Edit: hilarious if cuomo is better running gf business than mubadala. Haha
 
Last edited: