I’m wondering whether die shrinking will see the same end as the MHz race - feels quite likely to me. And the big question is: What’s next? While race will be on next for the years to come?
I’m very sceptical of 3nm. Even 5 nm is thought, in a number of chip engineering research groups to be just 50/50.
I’m a total layman here, but 3nm sound very very small indeed. With silicone having a diameter of about 200pm that equal six atoms wide lanes
Is this marketing hype or in fact TSMC able to move to true 7nm chip node fabrication ? If true than impressive.
Ah, well... the problem is that none of these processes are truly what they are called anymore. Intel’s is the closest. These other manufacturers are hedging their numbers. The ability to lay down a 7nm line doesn’t mean that transistor density will equal a 7nm process. It’s more likely that it’s closer to a real 10-12nm process in density.
but last year, estimated for Apple’s SoC density was well over what the indistry was doing, including that of other TSMC customers. Apple has been spending a whale of a lot of,money in recent years in basic chip technology. It’s possible they’ve got some proprietary tech used only for their own chips.
When we talk about a 7nm die, etc. what exactly is being measured? Obviously 7nm is significantly smaller than 10nm, but what does this mean?
It’s not really a die. It’s a process width, called a node. It means that the smallest features can be of 7nm width. The interconnects on the chip can be, in some instances, 7nm. But more often it’s just that the edges of the features can be finer. The oroblem is that quantum physics and Heisenberg’s laws of uncertainty are fiercely coming into play now.
at macroscopic sizes, the surface area of a wire is relatively small when compared to the area inside. But as things get much smaller, the inside of the wire is closer to the outside. According to the uncertainty laws, we don’t know where an electron is going to be at any time. A certain percentage don’t go where expected. The electrons closer to the outside of the wire are more likely to “leak” out. At larger sizes, that’s not much of a problem, but as the surface becomes closer to the center, there are more electrons traveling near that edge, and so more leak out. They tunnel across the insulating portions and end up where they’re not wanted. This leakage causes a lot of problems.
in these new processes, the center to edge ratio is very low. For example, a 10nm line is about 25-40 atoms wide. Cut the width in half, and you half that too. At some point, there are more electrons traveling along the edge than in the middle, and the middle is almost the edge anyway. Such a large number of electrons escape their path, that it becomes impossible to maintain an electrical circuit.
transistors are many times the size of the process number. They are complex objects. At some point, it’s impossible to have enough atoms to design a shape. So, for example, 14nm and smaller relies on a design that uses spikes to increase surface area. But below 10nm, that design doesn’t work well, and uses more power than at 10nm.but it doesn’t work at 5nm at all, and there’s a lot of controversy as to what might replace it. While there are three other possible replacements, no company has gotten any of them to work as of this date, which is why I’m not sanguine about the timetable TSMC has about it.
Wait one damned minute! Weren’t we just treated to a gloom and doom report saying TSMC was lowering its revenue estimates by $1 BILLION because iPhone sales have collapsed into the toilet. Now this article says, “Chip producer TSMC may enjoy its highest profits this year for production of the A12 processor...” What am I supposed to believe? The gloom and doom article caused AAPL to tank overnight. Wall Street apparently believes it’s all over for Apple. I’m getting really tired of this Yin and Yang horse manure.
The revenue estimates were for the second quarter based on forecasts for the A11. The higher profits are for the year based on forecasts for the A12.
Both can be true.
And both can be false. The problem is AAPL continues to be the most manipulated stock ever. It used to be the stock market was a way to grow an investment, now it's simply another way to gamble--win some lose some but in the end someone always wins. Killing AAPL because someone says TSMC is lowering its revenue estimates doesn't necessarily mean they are or it's only because of Apple supposedly doing or not doing something.
When I see a headline for a news article (and I use that term loosely) that says, Apple stock may fall on 'materially' weaker iPhone sales, but then it is time to buy" my statement about manipulation is correct. Hammer a stock with potentially false or degrading information so it goes down, then buy and watch it rebound. Classic case of stock manipulation.
Agree with everything you say except that stock market has never been a place for guaranteed or even safe growth. So long as the free market forces are active, all investments are a gamble. There might be more manipulation today than in the past but there is also more speculators and money to be had too.
The report also indicated that Qualcomm's Snapdragon 855 would be using Samsung's 7nm process with an early 2019 release.
Looks like we need to have US Congregational inquiry about all these 10nm,7nm,5nm claims. If that was so easy than Intel,IBM,etc would have done it long time back.
I’m wondering whether die shrinking will see the same end as the MHz race - feels quite likely to me. And the big question is: What’s next? While race will be on next for the years to come?
I’m very sceptical of 3nm. Even 5 nm is thought, in a number of chip engineering research groups to be just 50/50.
I’m a total layman here, but 3nm sound very very small indeed. With silicone having a diameter of about 200pm that equal six atoms wide lanes
Atoms in this process are about 0.50nm in diameter. Depending on the crystalline form, you can get 3 to 4 in not much more than an atom’s width.
Wait one damned minute! Weren’t we just treated to a gloom and doom report saying TSMC was lowering its revenue estimates by $1 BILLION because iPhone sales have collapsed into the toilet. Now this article says, “Chip producer TSMC may enjoy its highest profits this year for production of the A12 processor...” What am I supposed to believe? The gloom and doom article caused AAPL to tank overnight. Wall Street apparently believes it’s all over for Apple. I’m getting really tired of this Yin and Yang horse manure.
The revenue estimates were for the second quarter based on forecasts for the A11. The higher profits are for the year based on forecasts for the A12.
Both can be true.
And both can be false. The problem is AAPL continues to be the most manipulated stock ever. It used to be the stock market was a way to grow an investment, now it's simply another way to gamble--win some lose some but in the end someone always wins. Killing AAPL because someone says TSMC is lowering its revenue estimates doesn't necessarily mean they are or it's only because of Apple supposedly doing or not doing something.
When I see a headline for a news article (and I use that term loosely) that says, Apple stock may fall on 'materially' weaker iPhone sales, but then it is time to buy" my statement about manipulation is correct. Hammer a stock with potentially false or degrading information so it goes down, then buy and watch it rebound. Classic case of stock manipulation.
Agree with everything you say except that stock market has never been a place for guaranteed or even safe growth. So long as the free market forces are active, all investments are a gamble. There might be more manipulation today than in the past but there is also more speculators and money to be had too.
In the long run, manipulation isn’t of any account. It’s just in the very short term that it matters. To a day trader it matters, but to long term investors, as I am, it doesn’t matter at all.
I’m wondering whether die shrinking will see the same end as the MHz race - feels quite likely to me. And the big question is: What’s next? While race will be on next for the years to come?
I’m very sceptical of 3nm. Even 5 nm is thought, in a number of chip engineering research groups to be just 50/50.
I’m a total layman here, but 3nm sound very very small indeed. With silicone having a diameter of about 200pm that equal six atoms wide lanes
Atoms in this process are about 0.50nm in diameter. Depending on the crystalline form, you can get 3 to 4 in not much more than an atom’s width.
Good-bye Samsung
I'm very impressed with how quickly TSMC went from unheard-of to top-of-the-line. It is a testament to their resourcefulness. It's also a clear illustration of SS's shortsightedness! If only LG could get their act together with displays, but I think Japan Display would be the better alternative. If they survive the year.
TSMC has been around for a very long time. I suspect this stemenet is more about someone being out of touch rather than TSMC being unheard of.
Is this marketing hype or in fact TSMC able to move to true 7nm chip node fabrication ? If true than impressive.
Ah, well... the problem is that none of these processes are truly what they are called anymore. Intel’s is the closest. These other manufacturers are hedging their numbers. The ability to lay down a 7nm line doesn’t mean that transistor density will equal a 7nm process. It’s more likely that it’s closer to a real 10-12nm process in density.
but last year, estimated for Apple’s SoC density was well over what the indistry was doing, including that of other TSMC customers. Apple has been spending a whale of a lot of,money in recent years in basic chip technology. It’s possible they’ve got some proprietary tech used only for their own chips.
Apple is achieving some very high transistor densities possibly better than Intel can achieve. In the end it is what you can stick into a square mm that counts.
Good-bye Samsung
I'm very impressed with how quickly TSMC went from unheard-of to top-of-the-line. It is a testament to their resourcefulness. It's also a clear illustration of SS's shortsightedness! If only LG could get their act together with displays, but I think Japan Display would be the better alternative. If they survive the year.
"TSMC went from unheard-of to top-of-the-line"? They have been the top dog for over a decade.
Wait one damned minute! Weren’t we just treated to a gloom and doom report saying TSMC was lowering its revenue estimates by $1 BILLION because iPhone sales have collapsed into the toilet. Now this article says, “Chip producer TSMC may enjoy its highest profits this year for production of the A12 processor...” What am I supposed to believe? The gloom and doom article caused AAPL to tank overnight. Wall Street apparently believes it’s all over for Apple. I’m getting really tired of this Yin and Yang horse manure.
Doom and gloom is stupid but there is no contradiction in the factual narratives. The iPhone X runs on A11, of which TSMC has lowered the production, and the next iPhone will run on A12, of which TSMC is charging Apple premium for the advanced lithography and thus profiting more.
What strikes me here is the continued power / speed boosts in the mobile processor and what it portends. I think it may have already reached the point where the A series processors have met and exceeded the normal demands that would be made of them on a smart phone.
So where does it go from there?
What new innovations will Apple develop that will be able to utilize this power.
One obvious one is the iPad which will continue to eat into the functions normally reserved for laptops.
But too, I can see an iPhone being plugged into a dock and being used to drive peripherals such as keyboards, touchpads, large screens, external storage, etc...
I’m wondering whether die shrinking will see the same end as the MHz race - feels quite likely to me. And the big question is: What’s next? While race will be on next for the years to come?
I’m very sceptical of 3nm. Even 5 nm is thought, in a number of chip engineering research groups to be just 50/50.
I’m a total layman here, but 3nm sound very very small indeed. With silicone having a diameter of about 200pm that equal six atoms wide lanes
Atoms in this process are about 0.50nm in diameter. Depending on the crystalline form, you can get 3 to 4 in not much more than an atom’s width.
Is this marketing hype or in fact TSMC able to move to true 7nm chip node fabrication ? If true than impressive.
Ah, well... the problem is that none of these processes are truly what they are called anymore. Intel’s is the closest. These other manufacturers are hedging their numbers. The ability to lay down a 7nm line doesn’t mean that transistor density will equal a 7nm process. It’s more likely that it’s closer to a real 10-12nm process in density.
but last year, estimated for Apple’s SoC density was well over what the indistry was doing, including that of other TSMC customers. Apple has been spending a whale of a lot of,money in recent years in basic chip technology. It’s possible they’ve got some proprietary tech used only for their own chips.
Apple is achieving some very high transistor densities possibly better than Intel can achieve. In the end it is what you can stick into a square mm that counts.
And the efficiency of the process, which is something that TSMC seems to be ahead in, at least when it comes to Samsung.
Wait one damned minute! Weren’t we just treated to a gloom and doom report saying TSMC was lowering its revenue estimates by $1 BILLION because iPhone sales have collapsed into the toilet. Now this article says, “Chip producer TSMC may enjoy its highest profits this year for production of the A12 processor...” What am I supposed to believe? The gloom and doom article caused AAPL to tank overnight. Wall Street apparently believes it’s all over for Apple. I’m getting really tired of this Yin and Yang horse manure.
Doom and gloom is stupid but there is no contradiction in the factual narratives. The iPhone X runs on A11, of which TSMC has lowered the production, and the next iPhone will run on A12, of which TSMC is charging Apple premium for the advanced lithography and thus profiting more.
We don’t know where TSMC is losing that billion from. A lot of these num nums assume that whatever affects an Apple supplier is solely due to Apple. But the entire smartphone industry is expecting lower phone sales. Apple is just one of many customers TSMC has. Qualcomm is another big one, for example. This could be due to any of the others, some of them, or even all of them. For all we know, Apple isn’t involved at all.
Wait one damned minute! Weren’t we just treated to a gloom and doom report saying TSMC was lowering its revenue estimates by $1 BILLION because iPhone sales have collapsed into the toilet. Now this article says, “Chip producer TSMC may enjoy its highest profits this year for production of the A12 processor...” What am I supposed to believe? The gloom and doom article caused AAPL to tank overnight. Wall Street apparently believes it’s all over for Apple. I’m getting really tired of this Yin and Yang horse manure.
The revenue estimates were for the second quarter based on forecasts for the A11. The higher profits are for the year based on forecasts for the A12.
Both can be true.
And both can be false. The problem is AAPL continues to be the most manipulated stock ever. It used to be the stock market was a way to grow an investment, now it's simply another way to gamble--win some lose some but in the end someone always wins. Killing AAPL because someone says TSMC is lowering its revenue estimates doesn't necessarily mean they are or it's only because of Apple supposedly doing or not doing something.
When I see a headline for a news article (and I use that term loosely) that says, Apple stock may fall on 'materially' weaker iPhone sales, but then it is time to buy" my statement about manipulation is correct. Hammer a stock with potentially false or degrading information so it goes down, then buy and watch it rebound. Classic case of stock manipulation.
The first one isn't false. TSMC issued a press release that they are expecting a lower Q2 due to weakening smartphone business. Whether this lower Q2 is due to lower A11 volumes or not has not been said explicitly but it is the only reasonable explanation. No other smartphone vendor has enough business with TSMC to explain the projected drop of sales
Qualcomm is in the smartphone segment and if apple is moving to intel communication chips, well qcom needs make less. Qcom is a TMSC customer ergo dropped sales.
Comments
at macroscopic sizes, the surface area of a wire is relatively small when compared to the area inside. But as things get much smaller, the inside of the wire is closer to the outside. According to the uncertainty laws, we don’t know where an electron is going to be at any time. A certain percentage don’t go where expected. The electrons closer to the outside of the wire are more likely to “leak” out. At larger sizes, that’s not much of a problem, but as the surface becomes closer to the center, there are more electrons traveling near that edge, and so more leak out. They tunnel across the insulating portions and end up where they’re not wanted. This leakage causes a lot of problems.
in these new processes, the center to edge ratio is very low. For example, a 10nm line is about 25-40 atoms wide. Cut the width in half, and you half that too. At some point, there are more electrons traveling along the edge than in the middle, and the middle is almost the edge anyway. Such a large number of electrons escape their path, that it becomes impossible to maintain an electrical circuit.
transistors are many times the size of the process number. They are complex objects. At some point, it’s impossible to have enough atoms to design a shape. So, for example, 14nm and smaller relies on a design that uses spikes to increase surface area. But below 10nm, that design doesn’t work well, and uses more power than at 10nm.but it doesn’t work at 5nm at all, and there’s a lot of controversy as to what might replace it. While there are three other possible replacements, no company has gotten any of them to work as of this date, which is why I’m not sanguine about the timetable TSMC has about it.
In the long run, manipulation isn’t of any account. It’s just in the very short term that it matters. To a day trader it matters, but to long term investors, as I am, it doesn’t matter at all.
It may not be the first, but will be the best!!
And the efficiency of the process, which is something that TSMC seems to be ahead in, at least when it comes to Samsung.
We don’t know where TSMC is losing that billion from. A lot of these num nums assume that whatever affects an Apple supplier is solely due to Apple. But the entire smartphone industry is expecting lower phone sales. Apple is just one of many customers TSMC has. Qualcomm is another big one, for example. This could be due to any of the others, some of them, or even all of them. For all we know, Apple isn’t involved at all.
we’ll find out the 1st of May.