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

Page 209 - 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
1,777
6,787
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:

511

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2024
3,555
3,381
106
Intel's faults are Intel's, not their ISA if that's what you are implying. Their StrongARM division was executing badly.

If x86 was open and not artificially protected by corrupt lawyers that couldn't see beyond money, then Intel(and AMD) would have real competition. I bet you Apple would make a comparably efficient SoC.
If Intel had brain they wouldn't have lost their lead
 

poke01

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2022
3,980
5,302
106
Intel's faults are Intel's, not their ISA if that's what you are implying. Their StrongARM division was executing badly.

If x86 was open and not artificially protected by corrupt lawyers that couldn't see beyond money, then Intel(and AMD) would have real competition. I bet you Apple would make a comparably efficient SoC.
That reminds of this article, still relevant today I suppose.

If only Intel realised that low power but high performance CPUs designs were the future.
To this day Intel hasn’t created a low power but high performance CPUs architecture be it the P core or the Atom/mont core.
 

poke01

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2022
3,980
5,302
106
That reminds of this article, still relevant today I suppose.

If only Intel realised that low power but high performance CPUs designs were the future.
To this day Intel hasn’t created a low power but high performance CPUs architecture be it the P core or the Atom/mont core.
Prior to stating P.A Semi, Dan Dobberpuhl created StormARM too.

So Apple switched to Intel because IBM wasn’t able to create a CPU that could fit a laptop and not burn. But these P.A Semi folks did, and Apple switched the Mac to Intel by then and P.A Semis missed out.

The biggest mistake Intel ever did was to reject StrongARM CPUs for the iPhone, cause if they didn’t Apple would not have brought P.A Semi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and marees

511

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2024
3,555
3,381
106
It should force Intel to build Ohio and use 14A for their products if gov. is pumping them make sure to disable stock buy back and dividend program for few years 🤣 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and bhelhokie

LightningZ71

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2017
2,398
3,058
136
This all happened in the last few decades in the aviation industry. The EU and the US went full bore into a major back and forth litigation cycle over the various types of money flowing in and out of Airbus Industries and Boeing. The EU was claiming that many of the pork filled contracts that were handed to Boeing for the USAF amounted to direct federal subsidies in addition to state tax breaks and subsidies that were paid to Boeing to encourage them to do things like build factories in South Carolina and move their headquarters to Chicago. Airbus also got a ton of "questionable" government contracts for all sorts of dead end research and development projects, direct financial assistance for expanding production facilities, essentially no-bid contracts for vastly over priced commercial conversion projects when substantially less expensive alternatives existed on the market, etc.

The same kind of sh*tstorm is coming for semiconductor support by governments. The only way that it doesn't? Nationalizing a portion of the companies and production facilities for product. Even then, it's still likely to get ugly.
 

johnsonwax

Senior member
Jun 27, 2024
302
465
96
Thanks for weighing in. There’s a handful of Xitter people I follow who happen to be bagholders of Intel stock and they’ve been praying for a split of IFS and the design side, mainly because they believe a split will unlock value on the design side and allow them to recover their paper losses. I never really understood how that could work since it was my belief that their shares of the foundry side would offset any gains from the design side.
Yeah, that's possibly true, though given the layoffs on the design side it's not a given. The market is a weighing not measuring machine. The design side gets unshackled from all manner of things like the rate at which you can contract physical plant that allow a design focused company to see higher PEs. It doesn't always make sense.
 

johnsonwax

Senior member
Jun 27, 2024
302
465
96
It is a seed capital that has grown to this amount

(The start-up was boosted by govt. But now the company is mature & govt stake is minority)
There are a lot of other things government can do to help - taxation, regulation, visas for foreign talent, shaping the market so that competition doesn't become destructive, etc. TSMC doesn't need cash any longer, but the government can solve loads of other problems.