tarlinian (tarlinian.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 17, 2014 10:40 am wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 17, 2014 10:06 am wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > I have zero experience with fabs. But as an outsider, one can hardly mock
> > TSMC for this when Intel appears to be doing the exact same thing.
> >
> > What exactly is the difference between Intel's "14nm is doing just fine, we'll have some
> > Broadwell-Y chips to sell you soon, and, BTW, the mass market 14nm Broadwells will come
> > out in July 2015" and Samsung or TSMC's "16nm is doing just fine, we'll have some specialty
> > chip to sell you soon, and, BTW, the mass market A9 will come out in Sept 2015"?
> >
>
> I would say Aaron exaggerates TSMC's marketing spin a bit, especially since there
> isn't anyone else who is obliged to attempt to market their manufacturing.
>
> Comparing low volume production for TSMC and Intel is a bit silly. You are aware that even Broadwell-Y alone
> is much more complex than the specialty chips we're talking about for TSMC (basically FPGAs running at maybe
> 1 kwspm?)? TSMC claimed volume production of 20 nm started in January and we've seen 1 rather low volume
> consumer product (Qualcomm 9x35 modem in a Korea only version of the S5 LTE-A version) on the market with
> chips from 20 nm. Admittedly this may be due to Apple buying most of their capacity, but Qualcomm's roadmap
> said that sampling of 20 nm SoCs would only begin in 2H 2014 with product shipments in 1H 2015.

My point was more on the Intel side than the TSMC side. I cannot understand why no-one thinks it absolutely BIZARRE that, in a process that is supposedly debugged and ready, Intel cannot ship for six months/eleven months, the most desirable CPUs for that process and is, instead, limiting itself to a novelty chip that is unlikely to sell in large quantities.
(Sure, maybe Intel knows something we don't, and the world is soon going to be awash in devices that are clones of either Surface Pro or Yoga, only with somewhat lower performance. But that strikes me as unlikely...)

People seem quite happy to say that Intel's 14nm is "ready and running" without accepting what this scheduling seems to be telling us about the true situation.