Discussion Leading Edge Foundry Node advances (TSMC, Samsung Foundry, Intel) - [2020 - 2025]

Page 68 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DisEnchantment

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2017
1,747
6,598
136
TSMC's N7 EUV is now in its second year of production and N5 is contributing to revenue for TSMC this quarter. N3 is scheduled for 2022 and I believe they have a good chance to reach that target.

1587737990547.png
N7 performance is more or less understood.
1587739093721.png

This year and next year TSMC is mainly increasing capacity to meet demands.

For Samsung the nodes are basically the same from 7LPP to 4 LPE, they just add incremental scaling boosters while the bulk of the tech is the same.

Samsung is already shipping 7LPP and will ship 6LPP in H2. Hopefully they fix any issues if at all.
They have two more intermediate nodes in between before going to 3GAE, most likely 5LPE will ship next year but for 4LPE it will probably be back to back with 3GAA since 3GAA is a parallel development with 7LPP enhancements.


1587739615344.png

Samsung's 3GAA will go for HVM in 2022 most likely, similar timeframe to TSMC's N3.
There are major differences in how the transistor will be fabricated due to the GAA but density for sure Samsung will be behind N3.
But there might be advantages for Samsung with regards to power and performance, so it may be better suited for some applications.
But for now we don't know how much of this is true and we can only rely on the marketing material.

This year there should be a lot more available wafers due to lack of demand from Smartphone vendors and increased capacity from TSMC and Samsung.
Lots of SoCs which dont need to be top end will be fabbed with N7 or 7LPP/6LPP instead of N5, so there will be lots of wafers around.

Most of the current 7nm designs are far from the advertized density from TSMC and Samsung. There is still potential for density increase compared to currently shipping products.
N5 is going to be the leading foundry node for the next couple of years.

For a lot of fabless companies out there, the processes and capacity available are quite good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FEEL FREE TO CREATE A NEW THREAD FOR 2025+ OUTLOOK, I WILL LINK IT HERE
 
Last edited:

lightisgood

Senior member
May 27, 2022
214
97
71
They're great but only if Intel can manufacture enough of them without problems. And TSMC N3 is ruined how? Intel's packaging is about to get very complex over the next few years and validation is going to eat up a lot of their manufacturing time. Time will tell if their choices are up to snuff or not.

TSMC made too confident decision about EUV SADP and N3.
In 2H21~1H22, we could be aware that there was no hope of success.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
My point here was even if both companies had node access parity, Intel would still lose due to poor design. If AMD manufactured a Zen product on Intel's IFS in the future and Intel used that same node, AMD would still be ahead of them. Intel is an ego filled company that's experiencing brain drain and keeps hacking off bits and pieces.
That part is true. Thats because of only one reason. The super-fat & inefficient P-core. It's an outdated architecture that shouldn't even exist anymore. Intel is well aware of it and they're actively trying to ditch it asap.

Remember there is some confusion with ARL's P-core being RWC+ or LNL? Rumors said that they have (or had) both the projects going (dunno for how long) until one showed more promise. Not sure what that exactly means cos Intel's still keeping us in the dark. But if things work out, Intel may ditch the old P-cores in favor of LNL sooner than expected.

And there's a small chance Intel may use TSMC N3 for it's client tiles as well which can give them some more advantage.
 

Thibsie

Senior member
Apr 25, 2017
865
973
136
The 8 extra cores that take the same die area as 2 P cores? Intel could have gone with a 12 P core raptor lake sku with the same die area but instead they went 8+16. Seems that was a wise choice given their node disadvantage. Going with a second PPA optimized architecture turned out to be a pretty decent trade off to boost MT performance within the same die space budget.

I don't see how any of this relates to your argument that Intel 7 is somehow a misleading name and should be singled out relative to TSMC N7.
Raptor Lake on Intel 7 is able to compete with or beat AMD Zen2 and Zen3 on TSMC N7 but can't match TSMC N5 based Zen 4 in efficiency. It seems to be inline with what is expected...

Yep but this is at first a die size economy thing.
If they could have design P core a little less fat, they could have done 16 P cores as AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KompuKare

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
TSMC made too confident decision about EUV SADP and N3.
In 2H21~1H22, we could be aware that there was no hope of success.
The past is the past, we're in the now.
That part is true. Thats because of only one reason. The super-fat & inefficient P-core. It's an outdated architecture that shouldn't even exist anymore. Intel is well aware of it and they're actively trying to ditch it asap.

Remember there is some confusion with ARL's P-core being RWC+ or LNL? Rumors said that they have (or had) both the projects going (dunno for how long) until one showed more promise. Not sure what that exactly means cos Intel's still keeping us in the dark. But if things work out, Intel may ditch the old P-cores in favor of LNL sooner than expected.

And there's a small chance Intel may use TSMC N3 for it's client tiles as well which can give them some more advantage.
The sheer and utter confusion of what's coming down the pipeline unaided by dimwits like mlid doesn't help.
Yep but this is at first a die size economy thing.
If they could have design P core a little less fat, they could have done 16 P cores as AMD.
would have could have. I'm waiting to see how awful their yields are on bigger tiles.
Yet, that would be quite enjoyable.
Once upon a time... AMD made Intel licensed designed CPUs as second source for the industry.
Intel licensing AMD design would habe been fun xD

Never gonna happen though...
AMD would have to agree to such a preposterous deal in the first place. intel's problem is their ego and apple like advertising.
 

H433x0n

Golden Member
Mar 15, 2023
1,209
1,572
96
That part is true. Thats because of only one reason. The super-fat & inefficient P-core. It's an outdated architecture that shouldn't even exist anymore. Intel is well aware of it and they're actively trying to ditch it asap.

Remember there is some confusion with ARL's P-core being RWC+ or LNL? Rumors said that they have (or had) both the projects going (dunno for how long) until one showed more promise. Not sure what that exactly means cos Intel's still keeping us in the dark. But if things work out, Intel may ditch the old P-cores in favor of LNL sooner than expected.

And there's a small chance Intel may use TSMC N3 for it's client tiles as well which can give them some more advantage.
It’s not. RWC is a slightly larger core than RPC (iso node) and slightly more performant and yet RWC is 26% smaller despite packing in more transistors. The node makes a huge difference and this is seemingly lost on everybody.

MTL compute tile is 73mm^2, the same size as a Zen 4 CCD and it outperforms it. Did Intel suddenly become masters of silicon space efficiency?
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
Intel 7 Ultra, world first 6GHz process, remind me and us that density is not all.

Pfft Intel had 6 GHz+ chips years ago. Unless for some reason you're discounting overclockers, which renders the distinction moot if you do.

Yep but this is at first a die size economy thing.
If they could have design P core a little less fat, they could have done 16 P cores as AMD.

Careful, I've suggested that before but the e-core fans won't have any of it.
 

lightisgood

Senior member
May 27, 2022
214
97
71
The past is the past, we're in the now.
Why didn't you see iPhone 15 Pro's small amount performance boost ?
This is why major customers (Qualcomm, MediaTek, NVIDIA, etc) avoid N3 and focus on N3E.
Also, Intel never rely on N3 process, poor-yield and high-wafer-cost... , in this year.

Generally, process development demands long lead time.
So, we may easily predict that it is good or not, especially foundry's process from major customers action.

For example, when Qualcomm left Intel 10nm in 2017-18, we cloud know it is rotten process.
Yes, after this, we got Ice Lake in 2019 with poor performance.
 
Last edited:

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
Why didn't you see iPhone 15 Pro's small amount performance boost ?
This is why major customers (Qualcomm, MediaTek, NVIDIA, etc) avoid N3 and focus on N3E.
Also, Intel never rely on N3 process, poor-yield and high-wafer-cost... , in this year.

Generally, process development demands long lead time.
So, we may easily predict that it is good or not, especially foundry's process from major customers action.
And the poor bump in performance in prior iphones was because all those leading edge nodes sucked too? Did it ever occur to you Apple can't grab 40% IPC improvement or some other stupid astronomical figure you lot expect them to do with each generation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
It’s not. RWC is a slightly larger core than RPC (iso node) and slightly more performant and yet RWC is 26% smaller despite packing in more transistors. The node makes a huge difference and this is seemingly lost on everybody.

MTL compute tile is 73mm^2, the same size as a Zen 4 CCD and it outperforms it. Did Intel suddenly become masters of silicon space efficiency?
I think we're actually discussing about the size of a single p-core. It is larger than it needs to be (for example, compared to the size of a single Zen 4 core).
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
I think we're actually discussing about the size of a single p-core. It is larger than it needs to be (for example, compared to the size of a single Zen 4 core).
Given Intel's situation and finances, I think they may have realised doing so would cut into their production time and thus cost them dearly. It's easier to push an "inferior" p core size than spend the capital on shrinking it. Or getting ht to run on the e cores due to the mismatch circumstances.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
I think we're actually discussing about the size of a single p-core. It is larger than it needs to be (for example, compared to the size of a single Zen 4 core).

Where is the comparison of Zen4 vs P-core on ISO process? How can we even compare something that has different amount of L2 per core, heck even L3 cache slice requirements are completely different.
The best comparison comes from MTL compute die 6P+8E, giving 8 units of compute total and comparing that to AMD's CCD for Zen4.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Given Intel's situation and finances, I think they may have realised doing so would cut into their production time and thus cost them dearly. It's easier to push an "inferior" p core size than spend the capital on shrinking it. Or getting ht to run on the e cores due to the mismatch circumstances.
Usually, developing a new performance core is very difficult, expensive & time consuming. But what many overlook is the fact that it's extremely risky too. It's a massive commitment & if it fails, the repercussions are severe. Like bulldozer.

Lion Cove hopefrully is a step in the right direction. But it's hard to say whether it'll succeed in the real world until actually it does.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
Usually, developing a new performance core is very difficult, expensive & time consuming. But what many overlook is the fact that it's extremely risky too. It's a massive commitment & if it fails, the repercussions are severe. Like bulldozer.

Lion Cove hopefrully is a step in the right direction. But it's hard to say whether it'll succeed in the real world until actually it does.
Never thought I'd see the day to see a chatgpt style reply reiterating what I said.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Where is the comparison of Zen4 vs P-core on ISO process? How can we even compare something that has different amount of L2 per core, heck even L3 cache slice requirements are completely different.
The best comparison comes from MTL compute die 6P+8E, giving 8 units of compute total and comparing that to AMD's CCD for Zen4.
Actually I was just saying what I read a while back. Something like a single Zen core was only half the size of a single Intel p-core (excluding L2). Just googled & found this on reddit posted by @Geddagod. Check it out... (link)

It says: "The whole Golden Cove module is 86 percent larger than the Zen 3 module, while the core itself is 74 percent larger".

I love Intel a lot, but I just cannot lie in this case. Current Intel P-core are c*** that shouldn't even exist in this day and age. The P-cores are extremely fat & power-hungry. I seriously wish that the new LNC core is more comparable to a Zen core rather than the existing Intel P-core.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
I love Intel a lot, but I just cannot lie in this case. Current Intel P-core are c*** that shouldn't even exist in this day and age. The P-cores are extremely fat & power-hungry. I seriously wish that the new LNC core is more comparable to a Zen core rather than the existing Intel P-core.

That is unfortunately load of uninformed BS and goal post switching ( we were talking about GLC vs ZEN4, and suddenly ZEN3 comparison is thrown in ).
Are you aware that GLC includes AVX512 and full wide execution units? Just so You know, having PRF for 512bit registers does not come free in area and neither do full width vector ALU/FMA units, neither is massive L1D bw.

So while Intel's retarded ways of AVX512 etc disable were discussed here ad infinitum, one cannot compare Z3 and GLC and claim that it's not area efficient. Some Intel defence force dude might claim that GLC is very area efficient when executing some AVX512 code and he'd be right ( even if argument is not really valid on desktop ).

The real comparison would be Z4 and GLC on same process, both without L2. But even this comparison is disingenuous from "performance" side, as now AMD is supporting AVX512 and benefiting from performance increases and Intel is continuing to carry massive area that is not used.

IF Intel were to produce a proper client P-core without AVX512 waste, it would not be THAT much larger than Zen4 on SAME process (except Z4 would continue to support and benfit from avx512 obviuosly). AMD funnily is spending almost no area on AVX512, their PRF is still 256bits and execution units also. Kudos and all credit for them for finding such clever tricks.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
without AVX512 waste... it would not be THAT much larger than Zen4 on SAME process. AMD funnily is spending almost no area on AVX512,
You maybe right. But you also agree that it's still carrying the avx512 dead weight.

Next is, you also say AMD spends almost no area on AVX512 while also saying Intel p-core dead space is mainly due to AVX512 support. What the reason for the discrepancy?

Also, Intel P-Cores are know for their high power-inefficiency. It's a well established fact. Don't get me wrong. I actually like Intel a lot. But I strongly believe LNC is the way to go. Time to retire the fat/inefficient cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Kryohi

qmech

Member
Jan 29, 2022
82
179
66
Again no. Where did I claim it's the greatest thing since sliced bread? I'd appreciate it if you didn't make up wild and ludicrous claims of things I've never stated on here. SMIC 7nm is still 5 years minimum behind cutting edge and it will have a limit of what's possible going forward. Unless SMIC or China can get their hands on EUV machines which need maintenance to maintain production or have access to the chemicals needed, or heck, make their own, they're still screwed by sanctions.

Please show me where I'm even remotely excited about SMIC doing this. If it isn't clear by now I personally prefer other countries relying on the west to survive, not doing their own thing.

Sure: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...g-foundry-intel.2579857/page-64#post-41070756

"knocked it out of the park" was the exact phrase you used.

I responded by simply pointing out that the TechInsight summary did not make any claims that backed up the "knocked it out of the park" conclusion, to which you started off on the Intel7 tangent, clearly preferring that to the subject matter. I apologize for continuing on the Intel7 issue, derailing this thread for several pages. That was clearly not worth it and I will not continue arguing those particular semantics other than to state that I disagree with your evaluation of Intel7 compared to N7.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
Time to retire the fat/inefficient cores.

Again, that is load of nonsense. Why not go along Your pseudo logic a bit further and shout "Zen4 is area INEFFICIENT, lets retire it in favour of Zen4C, a new pinnacle of efficiency on TSMC 5nm".
Oh wait, so now your core has actual requirement to clock 6ghz? What about other possible requirements like including full width AVX512? 1024bytes per clock from L1D? are they invalid cause You believe so?
 

qmech

Member
Jan 29, 2022
82
179
66


So they jumped from 14nm to 7nm in about one year? Isn't that impressive?

I'm not entirely sure where you get the "one year" from. SMIC had at least one N+1 7nm chip last year, so in one year they've optimized their 7nm process (a fair bit, maybe).

It's worth noting that SMIC aren't the ones touting their process. For obvious reasons, they are being extremely cautious about flaunting their most advanced nodes. You will not find any press releases from them claiming a 7 nm process node. You will not even find mention of anything below 28 nm on their website. Even in their regulatory filings, investor reports, and quarterly reports, 14 nm and below is lumped together as "FinFET nodes". There are no details (or mentions) of 14 nm, 10 nm, 7 nm, etc.

I doubt any of this publicity is good for SMIC and it certainly isn't instigated by them.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
I was discussing Zen 4. Not Zen 3. Zen 4's power can be cut with minimal to no loss in performance. Both Intel and AMD bumped their power specs this generation "just to compete". It's very telling when there's little loss in performance while cutting back significant power. In other worse they both pushed the power to gain scant performance. Ignore the power and Intel still needs more cores and more power. I'm not sure why this is difficult for some people to understand.

The 13900K locked at 253 watts still needs its 8+16 setup to match or just edge out the 7950X. It's a win for Intel, but it's a pyrrhic victory. Needing 24 cores against 16 while clocking higher just to match to beat AMD by a very small margin is not a good win.
No, you started off talking about Intel’s Fabs vs TSMC. Let’s keep things in context here. If Zen 4 were on N7, it would consume more power than Raptor Lake. Zen 4 230W -> Raptor Lake 253W is only 10% additional power.

Intel is a node behind. A problem that is being corrected starting a week or three from now.

They also need to work on better balancing their “P” core, but that is another argument.