Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 26, 2014 4:07 am wrote:
> Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 26, 2014 3:55 am wrote:
> > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 26, 2014 3:52 am wrote:
> > > Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 26, 2014 3:38 am wrote:
> > > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 26, 2014 2:16 am wrote:
> > > > > Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 25, 2014 10:12 pm wrote:
> > > > > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 25, 2014 3:11 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 25, 2014 2:14 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 25, 2014 12:29 pm wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And TSMC has accelerated roadmap and will start 16nm volume production in 1Q15:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) will advance volume production on its 16nm
> > > > > > > > > process to the first quarter of 2015 with monthly output of 50,000 wafers in order to meet demand
> > > > > > > > > for Apple's A9 processors, the Chinese-language Economic Daily News (EDN) has reported.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > TSMC originally planned to kicked off 16nm volume production in second-quarter 2015.
> > > > > > > > > TSMC faces strong competition from Samsung Electronics' foundry business.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140825PB201.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Broadwell-EP @14nm vs ARM server-class @16nm will be an interesting figth to watch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Only when against all odds TSMC actually delivers. So far their track record is supremely abysmal. So far
> > > > > > > > there is high probability ARM server chips on that node will go against later Intel chips, not Broadwell.
> > > > > > > > Also it seems that Intel fitted into their 14nm more changes then so far foundries to their "16nm".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Broadwell-EP is scheduled for Q3 2015. Moreover, Skylake will use same node.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Intel 14nm will be only about half-node ahead of TSMC 16nm. The gap has reduced.
> > > > > > They will likely e against that Skylake.
> > > > > > Half-node? They are not yet even fully on "20nm". (one baseband
> > > > > > modem and only limited availability) And it doesn't
> > > > > > look like they have even similar advantages on 16nm as Intel gets from 14nm. (Under discussion here)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So far there are no sings of actually catching up with Intel any where else but slides...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Intel 14nm is about half-node away from TSMC 16nm.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I don't know what slides you are mentioning. The slides showing Broadwell would be in stores before
> > > > > it was delayed and next delayed and then delayed again? Or do you mean the infamous slide where Intel
> > > > > showed invalid densities for other's nodes, increasing artificially the gap between the nodes?
> > > >
> > > > Until "16nm" is actually shipping, then they are not. Also "16nm" has not that
> > > > much in common with 14nm by Intel. To my knowledge 16nm is just 20nm with trigates.
> > > > (First generation) So in no way it is half node away from 14nm.
> > > >
> > > > As for slides, I refer to their various published slides about
> > > > their advances and how they are supposedly closing gap...
> > > >
> > > > As for delays of Broadwell. Well, Intel is targeting "real" 14nm (that is, they
> > > > get full node shrink advantage), unlike 16nm, which is no such thing. Original
> > > > process was to use more advanced equipment, which didn't materialize.
> > >
> > > Intel is not targeting "real" 14nm. Intel deviated from ITRS
> > > rules years ago, what they call 14nm is "real" ~16nm.
> > >
> > > TSMC and Glofo/Samsung are playing by same rules than Intel now, just to avoid
> > > marketing abuse from Intel. As Scott Thompson (former Intel fellow) said: "Intel's
> > > 22nm node is really 26nm, so if Intel does new math, so will we."
> > >
> > > What part of Intel 14nm is only about half-node away from TSMC 16nm is not stil understood?
> >
> > Frist, every body is on board. Second, there is a real reason why I used quotes. Third, how many times
> > will you ignore massive difference between 16nm and 14nm as presented yb each side? So still no such
> > thing as half-node! Read the discussion around 14nm by Intel on this board and what TSMC's 16nm is.
>
> And just to reduce time spent on this, here is link:
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=142731&curpostid=142731
> + linked article on TechReport. (Got slides included)
> Another discussion:
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=142423&curpostid=142423
>
> That should include everything necessary.

And as showed in this forum before Intel 14nm is only half node from TSMC 16nm. M1 HP and densities of each were mentioned by me here.