Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on August 16, 2014 9:10 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 2:56 am wrote:
> >
> > And a ~50% density advantage is not "a full node advantage" as I mentioned just
> > above. Intel _traditional_ process advantage has vanished, as others agree,
> >
> > http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/components/microprocessors-and-dsps/whats-new-14nm-processors-intel-2014-08/
> >
> Lol, and if you believe that, I've got a couple bridges in the New York
> and San Francisco area codes for sale, cheap at twice the price!
>
> > TSMC claims _10nm_ risk production for late 2015. 16nm is being produced now (check above link). ARM server
> > 16nm parts will be available during 2015--2016. Broadwell has been delayed again to late 2015.
> >
> I don't believe that anyone in the industry has actually believed TSMC's public roadmaps
> for at least a decade. Here's my personal handy decoder ring for TSMC process speak:
>
> Risk Production = initial recipe, pretty much guaranteed not to work.
> Early Production = We think it might actually work now but like
> only every other wafer, give us at least another year or two
> Volume Production = We've almost hit what everyone calls risk production
> Mature Process = Early production
> Last generation process = Volume production!
> Obsolete process = Mature Process.
>
> If you keep this handy decoder ring in mind, then TSMC's process roadmap
> seems to make sense. Probably just an issue of things getting lost in translation
> somewhere between engineering speak, management speak, et al.

So lets see then, The test chips which ARM and others tested were guaranteed not to work and they were just deluded. The FPGA and wireless chips - well only the odd wafer might have worked. And the 70 million Apple A8 chips would be now almost hitting what others call risk production. And mature process is when they produce more in a quarter than Intel in a year. That sound about right?