AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,002
- 3,357
- 136
Okay, I did the math and 20nm is only a measly 1.23x cheaper (Q4'14).
It is cheaper within a few months in production than a highly depreciated and higher yielded 3+ year old process.
Okay, I did the math and 20nm is only a measly 1.23x cheaper (Q4'14).
I dont think you understand the slide at all.
Where do you think 40nm would be on that slide? Even if we scale it back to 40, 28 and 20.
Where did you get that number from? Masks for 28nm are a few million dollars, so I don't think the impact is that large for higher volumes, but claiming 10B revenues is needed to amortize mask cost looks excessive to say the leastYou need apparently something like 10B revenue.
No. Moore's Law demands more than just price parity or a small decrease. If the price per transistor were the same as in 1965 (all else equal), your phone would now cost some orders of magnitude more than it actually does today.This is another good slide to understand why 20nm and 16nm are doing fine.
28nm full production started sometime in Q2-Q3 2011 if im not mistaken, lets say Q4 2011 to have the same quarter as the rest.
According to the above slide, 20nm in Q4 2016 will be cheaper than 28nm in Q4 2015. That means that 20nm will be cheaper only 2 years after the initial production start when 28nm took 4 years to reach the same price.
And then again 16nm at Q4 2017 will reach almost price parity with 28nm of Q4 2015. That means 16nm will only need a single year to reach price parity with 28nm at Q4 2015.
Also, in Q4 2015 28nm products will no be able to reach 20nm performance and power usage. So, although 20nm in Q4 2015 will cost more, 20nm products will command higher prices due to superior performance and lower power usage and ASP will be higher.
Same apply for Q4 2016 when 14/16nm products will be far more advanced than both 28nm and 20nm. So again those 14/16nm products will command higher ASP than the rest at that time.
This is how the industry is working for the last 20-30 years, Intel always degrease its die size of its CPUs but ASP remains the same. AMD and NVIDIA will have to do the same. NVIDIA already did that with Kepler and GK104 two years ago. They introduced a smaller die at higher ASP than before(GF110). They will do the same again at 20nm, they will introduce a smaller die than GM204 at higher ASP.
Where did you get that number from? Masks for 28nm are a few million dollars, so I don't think the impact is that large for higher volumes, but claiming 10B revenues is needed to amortize mask cost looks excessive to say the least
Where did you get that number from? Masks for 28nm are a few million dollars, so I don't think the impact is that large for higher volumes, but claiming 10B revenues is needed to amortize mask cost looks excessive to say the least
Handel said the gate utilization is an issue because of limitations of the design tools and parasitic effects. The other factor is parametric yields, which are strictly tied into leakage control for the 20nm and of course for the 16nm FinFETs, he said. You can break this. Intel has shown that it can be broken and of course thats an excellent achievement. But, its based on very high design costs, potentially $1 billion per design, so you need $10 billion in revenue. It also takes a number of years, he said. He noted that, in the smartphone market, designs move very fast. You cant make that kind of investments in designs.
They weren't playing outside of standard x86 turf until very recently. Your post is utter nonsense.Intel have been bragging for years but they havnt put action behind their words but on the contrary lost every bit outside of x86 turf.
Those are mutually exclusivebulk SOI
Those are mutually exclusive
"There is many ways to shrink"
- the headline for Intels new strategy for density
How do you think they got that monopoly?While up til now Intel have only proved they can earn a profit on x86 monopoly like markets
How do you think they got that monopoly?
Are you Daniel Nenni or something? Your bias against Intel is so strong that every other word you write is complete nonsense. This is a technical forum -- get your facts straight. The fact that people such as you are allowed to pretend to have any sort of knowledge here is baffling. The misinformation being spread here is seriously getting out of hand, and the moderation team really needs to do something about it.Intels pouring money into asml have failed and now hit them in their face.
I think Nosta analysis is actually right here. They are going to fall flat on 10nm for density because of euv tools.
Intels historic disadvantage of density because they have to use the same euv tools as everyone else is now getting worse because asml dev have failed and stagnated.
As usual Intel tried to get monopoly advantage on the euv side by pouring the money into asml - otellini strategy - but forgot gf and amd was not the compettitor any more but instead they met ss as compettitor that have more money and their own for internal use monopoly like products and knew what they were up to.
Now intel get it all in their face. Thats how it is when you meet the big bad guys that knew Intels venture into euv was vulnerable and a sign of weakness.
What? Shouldn't it be "There are many ways to shrink"?
FYI: R&D is expensive. The story for 450mm wafers is very simple -- right now, the cost:benefit ratio for investing in 450mm wafer development is not worth it. This will change as time goes on.+add Intels investment in Nikon 450mm wafer tech have gone where?
Down the drain obviously - and what a mix of intersts here vs asml. The rest of the mop dont care for 450mm and is nursing their comming14nm fet and non fets.
When Altera's 14nm success story rolls around next year, more people will jump ship to Intel.
We really need less "glass is half empty" types around here.Great. They will have 3 Altera then?
Altera just shows they havnt really started. What they need is another league of business. Altera is just peanuts and just prove my point.
And btw i knew someone would get that example. Well thank you for doing so.
FYI: R&D is expensive. The story for 450mm wafers is very simple -- right now, the cost:benefit ratio for investing in 450mm wafer development is not worth it. This will change as time goes on.
And for the record, a rising tide lifts all boats. You should upset that 450mm has been delayed, not grateful because it would mean Intel would get it first. A 30% reduction in cost would have tremendous positive implications on the semiconductor industry, and for the world as a whole. You should be even more upset with EUV's delay, not running around here being joyful because you're happy it harms Intel.
EUV's delay has less to do with money, and more to do with the fact that there's only a single developer for it. The lithography tools market severely lacks competition. If you had two companies playing against each other to push EUV out of the door as fast as possible, we'd have seen it at 32nm like initially planned, or at the least much earlier than 2016.Fyi. I think 450mm and euv will get here when the customers will pay for it. And when they pay for it its the right time.
I dont have the slightest personal opinion or feelings of such things.
I didn't say that at all, and in fact I stated the opposite.But the entire idea that it should come here as fast as possible is idiotic as it would move ressources away from other product development. Thats how it works. Failure to see that just shows a narrow mind regarding development.