TSMC confirms 40nm yield issues

[thilanliyan]

http://www.eetimes.com/news/se...VN?articleID=217201043

EDIT: FYI this has been posted in the other nVidia 40nm thread by Idontcare.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.eetimes.com/news/se...VN?articleID=217201043

I assume this only affects NV, and perhaps explains the bureaucratic PR response from Keys? Interesting if true, and very bad news for NV. AMD basically pwns the bulk of the GPU market until they can compete with the 4770 for $100, especially in light of the fact that the thing will apparently overclock to 1ghz/1ghz (core/mem) with a bios upgrade to add a bit more voltage.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.eetimes.com/news/se...VN?articleID=217201043

I assume this only affects NV, and perhaps explains the bureaucratic PR response from Keys? Interesting if true, and very bad news for NV. AMD basically pwns the bulk of the GPU market until they can compete with the 4770 for $100, especially in light of the fact that the thing will apparently overclock to 1ghz/1ghz (core/mem) with a bios upgrade to add a bit more voltage.

AMD still uses TSMC for their ATI chips, so it affects them as well.

http://en.expreview.com/2009/0...d-4770-99-monster.html

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.eetimes.com/news/se...VN?articleID=217201043

I assume this only affects NV, and perhaps explains the bureaucratic PR response from Keys? Interesting if true, and very bad news for NV. AMD basically pwns the bulk of the GPU market until they can compete with the 4770 for $100, especially in light of the fact that the thing will apparently overclock to 1ghz/1ghz (core/mem) with a bios upgrade to add a bit more voltage.

AMD still uses TSMC for their ATI chips, so it affects them as well.

http://en.expreview.com/2009/0...d-4770-99-monster.html

Does AMD use them as heavily as NV does when it comes to GPUs?

When ATi was ATi, they made their chips in-house IIRC.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

When ATi was ATi, they made their chips in-house IIRC.

ATI never owned their own fabs, and used 3rd party fabs like TSMC to produce their chips.

 

[Idontcare]

Definitely deserves its own thread, previously I had posted the following in key's 40nm thread but I'll post it here again as I think the 28nm comments and timeline bear repeating:

Originally posted by: Idontcare

TSMC confirms 40-nm yield issues, gives predictions

Silicon foundry giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC) posted better-than-expect results in the first quarter of 2009.

During a conference call with analysts, Rick Tsai, president and chief executive of TSMC (Hsinchu, Taiwan), acknowledged that the company had some ''yield'' issues with its new 40-nm process. He also provided some predictions for 2009.

Last year, TSMC rolled out its 40-nm process. In Q1 of 2009, the company's 40-nm process represented about 1 percent of its overall sales, which is better-than-expected. In Q2, TSMC expects to have 2 percent of its overall sales in the 40-nm arena.

When an analyst asked about yield problems with the company's 40-nm process, Tsai said: ''There have been difficulties with the yields. 40-nm is a difficult technology to manufacturer. We understand the root of the problem.''

The TSMC CEO said the company has or is fixing the problem, but he did not elaborate. He also said that TSMC has demonstrated a functional SRAM cell, based on its upcoming 28-nm process, which includes high-k and metal gates for the gate stack.

The 28-nm process will also include a second gate-stack option, based on more conventional silicon dioxide. As previously reported, TSMC is expected to move into 28-nm production in the first part of 2010.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/se...l;?articleID=217201043

The 40nm stuff should surprise no one, but the 28nm comments really are aggressive to say the least.

Still stumbling around to get 40nm into HVM and they are boldly predicting 28nm will be ready in 12 months? Wouldn't that be awesome if it comes true?

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SickBeast
When ATi was ATi, they made their chips in-house IIRC.

They design the GPUs but send it to TSMC (and UMC too maybe) to have it built even when they were just ATI.

UMC was relevant for GPU foundry pre-65nm...but they have fallen behind TSMC so badly when it comes to timeline of releasing leading-edge process technology that both ATI and NVidia have used TSMC exclusively for their GPU's since 65nm.

With Intel moving into the discreet GPU market and bringing their superior process-tech to bear it is going to put all the more pressure on the fabless guys to beg/plead TSMC to step it up another notch (not so much pressure on TSMC right now, they are the top dog in the foundry world) and if they don't then it gives GlobalFoundries all the more opportunity to steal contracts for 32/28nm.

I think its going to be awesome, an veritable explosion of value-add and product differentiation from the process-tech aspects at 32/28nm are going to happen we go from one foundry basically sole-sourcing the market segment to three competing process techs competing against each other.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: SickBeast

When ATi was ATi, they made their chips in-house IIRC.

ATI never owned their own fabs, and used 3rd party fabs like TSMC to produce their chips.

Are you certain of that?

Perhaps I'm confused because ATi used to build their own cards in-house and sell them as their own brand (and didn't have companies like Sapphire branding the cards).

 

[Idontcare]

ATI has never owned a semiconductor IC fabrication facility (aka a fab)...they did build their own PCB boards inhouse and sell them, a differentiating point between them and Nvidia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: SickBeast

When ATi was ATi, they made their chips in-house IIRC.

ATI never owned their own fabs, and used 3rd party fabs like TSMC to produce their chips.

Are you certain of that?

Perhaps I'm confused because ATi used to build their own cards in-house and sell them as their own brand (and didn't have companies like Sapphire branding the cards).

building a CARD and fabricating a CHIP are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
ATI and nVidia have the exact same process, always did:
1. design a chip, design a board, write bios.
2. have a fab company, like TSMC, produce the chip
3. have another company produce a board and assemble the board, GPU, ram, and a cooler designed by a 3rd party into a single product.
4. This is where they differed in the past. In the past ATI had the board assembly company put an ATI sticker on it and then sold it as an ATI product. nVidia and modern ATI however sell the assembled video cards to different "manufacturers" (evga, xfx, etc) who put a sticker on it and sell it as their own product.

Rarely the partners design a custom board, or custom bios... but normally its all ATI or nVidia.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: SickBeast

When ATi was ATi, they made their chips in-house IIRC.

ATI never owned their own fabs, and used 3rd party fabs like TSMC to produce their chips.

Are you certain of that?

Perhaps I'm confused because ATi used to build their own cards in-house and sell them as their own brand (and didn't have companies like Sapphire branding the cards).

building a CARD and fabricating a CHIP are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
ATI and nVidia have the exact same process, always did:
1. design a chip, design a board, write bios.
2. have a fab company, like TSMC, produce the chip
3. have another company produce a board and assemble the board, GPU, ram, and a cooler designed by a 3rd party into a single product.
4. This is where they differed in the past. In the past ATI had the board assembly company put an ATI sticker on it and then sold it as an ATI product. nVidia and modern ATI however sell the assembled video cards to different "manufacturers" (evga, xfx, etc) who put a sticker on it and sell it as their own product.

Rarely the partners design a custom board, or custom bios... but normally its all ATI or nVidia.

IIRC, Sapphire actually built the "ATI" branded cards for ATI.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
IIRC, Sapphire actually built the "ATI" branded cards for ATI.

For a time ATi outsourced some of their cards to them and labeled them as their own, yes. I think it was part of a transition to being completely fabless and outsourcing all of their part production.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
*stuff about market share*

This has nothing to do with 40nm yield problems, so you may as well can it.

As for the matter at hand, I'm not particularly surprised that TSMC is having issues - even GlobalFoundries (née AMD's fabs) took a while to ramp up 45nm. This whole process is a PITA unless you're Intel, it would seem. TSMC has in recent years been about a year and a half back in process tech, so this is largely consistent with that. If it stays consistent, I would imagine that they're close to getting their yield problems under control. Which in turn is consistent with next-gen high-end GPUs going to 40nm later this year.

I think Idontcare is right on the dot about 28nm stuff too. Even if you maintain the 1.5 year gap behind Intel given their accelerated 32nm deployment schedule, what TSMC wants to do is still too early. While it would be cool to see such a breakthrough at TSMC, it's probably about as likely as S3 becoming competitive at the high-end again.

It's a loss for all of us though. The GPU industry is all about Moore's Law, once you reach your biggest practical chip size (which we're likely at) the only way you're going to significantly improve performance by waiting on die shrinks to stuff more transistors on a chip. So long as TSMC is fumbling, it's that much longer we wait for the next jump in performance.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
UMC was relevant for GPU foundry pre-65nm...but they have fallen behind TSMC so badly when it comes to timeline of releasing leading-edge process technology that both ATI and NVidia have used TSMC exclusively for their GPU's since 65nm.

Thanks for the input. I knew they were in the GPU game before but didn't know what happened to them.

EDIT: Oh and sorry I didn't know you had posted it before. Credit given.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Idontcare
UMC was relevant for GPU foundry pre-65nm...but they have fallen behind TSMC so badly when it comes to timeline of releasing leading-edge process technology that both ATI and NVidia have used TSMC exclusively for their GPU's since 65nm.

Thanks for the input. I knew they were in the GPU game before but didn't know what happened to them.

Yeah, to humor yourself google "UMC 45nm" and try and find a google hit dated anytime post June 2007.

I can't find anything dated 2008 let alone 2009. That's how bad it is at UMC at the moment.

Like Via or Ali based mobos, one year they are all the rage, two years later and you realize you haven't seen or heard anything about them in literally years.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: nitromullet
IIRC, Sapphire actually built the "ATI" branded cards for ATI.

For a time ATi outsourced some of their cards to them and labeled them as their own, yes. I think it was part of a transition to being completely fabless and outsourcing all of their part production.

ATI has always been fabless. The closest ATI has come to having a fab is the time between when AMD purchased them and AMD spun their fabs off as a different company. However, I don't think AMDs fabs were ever used to make any ATI chips.

This is really the point of this: both ATI and NV affected by any issues that TSMC has. Considering that ATI actually has a retail product based on the 40nm process, issues may actually affect them more. Then again, it's possible that TSMC themselves are actually eating most of the cost on this. I have no idea how these deals are brokered, but I could conceive that TSMC has a set price per chip with an agreement that they can provide a set number of chips by a given date. If this were the case, low yield would probably hurt TSMC more than ATI.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Idontcare
UMC was relevant for GPU foundry pre-65nm...but they have fallen behind TSMC so badly when it comes to timeline of releasing leading-edge process technology that both ATI and NVidia have used TSMC exclusively for their GPU's since 65nm.

Thanks for the input. I knew they were in the GPU game before but didn't know what happened to them.

Yeah, to humor yourself google "UMC 45nm" and try and find a google hit dated anytime post June 2007.

I can't find anything dated 2008 let alone 2009. That's how bad it is at UMC at the moment.

Like Via or Ali based mobos, one year they are all the rage, two years later and you realize you haven't seen or heard anything about them in literally years.

How's Chartered doing these days?

 

[imported_Asianman]

mod edit (non-"back on topic" part removed)

Back on topic, would the yield issues affect ATI's profit margins or TSMC's. Who actually takes the losses for the bad chips?

 

[Rifter]

mod edit (non-"back on topic" part removed)

Back on topic i hope they get the 40nm sorted out cause if they dont we wont be seeing any GPU's advancing at any rate of speed.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: SickBeast

When ATi was ATi, they made their chips in-house IIRC.

ATI never owned their own fabs, and used 3rd party fabs like TSMC to produce their chips.

Are you certain of that?

Perhaps I'm confused because ATi used to build their own cards in-house and sell them as their own brand (and didn't have companies like Sapphire branding the cards).

building a CARD and fabricating a CHIP are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
ATI and nVidia have the exact same process, always did:
1. design a chip, design a board, write bios.
2. have a fab company, like TSMC, produce the chip
3. have another company produce a board and assemble the board, GPU, ram, and a cooler designed by a 3rd party into a single product.
4. This is where they differed in the past. In the past ATI had the board assembly company put an ATI sticker on it and then sold it as an ATI product. nVidia and modern ATI however sell the assembled video cards to different "manufacturers" (evga, xfx, etc) who put a sticker on it and sell it as their own product.

Rarely the partners design a custom board, or custom bios... but normally its all ATI or nVidia.

IIRC, Sapphire actually built the "ATI" branded cards for ATI.

see the bolded part

 

[AmberClad]

Keep in on topic guys. I've just had to clean up this mess of a thread and I don't want to have to do it again.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
This is really the point of this: both ATI and NV affected by any issues that TSMC has. Considering that ATI actually has a retail product based on the 40nm process, issues may actually affect them more. Then again, it's possible that TSMC themselves are actually eating most of the cost on this. I have no idea how these deals are brokered, but I could conceive that TSMC has a set price per chip with an agreement that they can provide a set number of chips by a given date. If this were the case, low yield would probably hurt TSMC more than ATI.

If ATI keeps physical size of the GPU about the same they will get more working chips per wafer, so they will definitely be affected less than NV.

 

[Genx87]

Intel has a lot of fab capacity and resources to throw at this problem. AMD and NV are stuck waiting on 3rd party vendors like TSMC.

Hopefully it gets worked out soon so both AMD and NV can put out chips base don this process technology.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Keep in on topic guys. I've just had to clean up this mess of a thread and I don't want to have to do it again.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

Thank you.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: nitromullet
This is really the point of this: both ATI and NV affected by any issues that TSMC has. Considering that ATI actually has a retail product based on the 40nm process, issues may actually affect them more. Then again, it's possible that TSMC themselves are actually eating most of the cost on this. I have no idea how these deals are brokered, but I could conceive that TSMC has a set price per chip with an agreement that they can provide a set number of chips by a given date. If this were the case, low yield would probably hurt TSMC more than ATI.

If ATI keeps physical size of the GPU about the same they will get more working chips per wafer, so they will definitely be affected less than NV.

This is true, but my point was that ATI actually has a retail product based 40nm currently, while NV doesn't. Any issues that TSMC has won't affect NV's current retail lineup. The initial yields for G300 will most likely be low anyway, and I doubt that NV and TSMC will begin production of this chip if there is a known issue with TSMC's 40nm process that hasn't been ironed out. I would imagine the same is true for ATI's next generation high end chip as well.

The bottom line is that any issues that TSMC has with 40nm are not good for either ATI or NV either in the form of higher cost for current 40nm product or delays in future product based on the 40nm process. This isn't really an issue that NV or ATI can use as leverage against the other.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Asianman
mod edit (non-"back on topic" part removed)

Back on topic, would the yield issues affect ATI's profit margins or TSMC's. Who actually takes the losses for the bad chips?

I'm sure TSMC can raise their prices to compensate. Especially if UMC is no where near 40nm.