Slashdot Mirror


GlobalFoundries Stops All 7nm Development: Opts To Focus on Specialized Processes (anandtech.com)

GlobalFoundries has made a major strategy shift announcement. The contract maker of semiconductors says it is ceasing development of bleeding edge manufacturing technologies and stop all work on its 7LP (7 nm) fabrication processes, which will not be used for any client. From a report: Instead, the company will focus on specialized process technologies for clients in emerging high-growth markets. These technologies will initially be based on the company's 14LPP/12LP platform and will include RF, embedded memory, and low power features. Because of the strategy shift, GF will cut 5% of its staff as well as renegotiate its WSA and IP-related deals with AMD and IBM.

GlobalFoundries was on track to tape out its clients' first chips made using its 7 nm process technology in the fourth quarter of this year, but "a few weeks ago" the company decided to take a drastic strategical turn, says Gary Patton. The CTO stressed that the decision was made not based on technical issues that the company faced, but on a careful consideration of business opportunities the company had with its 7LP platform as well as financial concerns.
On the heels of this announcement, AMD said today that it will move all of its 7nm production on both CPUs and GPUs to TSMC.

114 comments

  1. Weasel words! by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Not based on technical issues' but based on...lots of bullshit...as well as financial concerns.

    'Financial concerns' like a 10% yield, or some other technical disaster, so full of shit.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Weasel words! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Maybe Intel and GlobalF. are forming a Cartel of Incompetence.

    2. Re:Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt they will be able to compete if they're standing still and letting TSMC take the lead. Everyone will simply go to the monopoly TSMC. This is horrible for consumers.

    3. Re:Weasel words! by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Before you consider the rest of the factors, 10% yield sounds like a working process to me!

      You'd know if it didn't work when the yield was well below 1%.

      You won't know if 10% is good or bad unless you do a financial analysis. Lots of high tech processes have low yield.

      It might not be weasel words, it might just some edujamakatid words.

    4. Re:Weasel words! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Still 3: Intel, Samsung and TSMC.

      Diminishing returns never sleeps. Each generation of fabs was costing about twice the last ones. Can't go on forever. CPU/GPU is INXS for 90-99% of applications.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Financial concerns as in the primary investor wanting to see the company make a profit for once instead of constant yearly losses. Not an unreasonable expectation.

    6. Re:Weasel words! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sure, projected yields and financial analysis come before 'disaster'...the point is they didn't just change course by themselves. Something changed, likely something technical. They learned something or a client walked away after learning something.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Weasel words! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It's actually just about economies of scale. The mobile processor ecosystem simply outgrew PC processors. AMD was the first to recognize this, Intel may still be in denial.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel can't even do 10nm properly.

    9. Re:Weasel words! by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      They learned that 7nm is really hard. You have your choice of way too many deep UV multipatterning steps or wacky new EUV technology still not ready for prime time. To get an idea just how not ready, google "EUV pellicles".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re: Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were already installing EUV:
      https://www.pcmag.com/article/359301/the-promises-and-challenges-of-euv-at-globalfoundries

    11. Re: Weasel words! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Everybody is. Building fab lines around it is another thing, they wisely backed out for the moment.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re: Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will perhaps skip "regular" 7nm and introduce 7nm EUV a couple years from now.

    13. Re:Weasel words! by rl117 · · Score: 2

      Plus, they are all hitting the wall. Going smaller means sinking billions for increasingly small gains. Intel's already struggling with "10nm". TSMC and Samsung might be doing "7nm" but chances are they are hitting the same limits. Even if they all make it to "7nm" in a couple of years, what then? Small iterative improvements at vast, vast cost. I can understand a company bailing out here; the gains are getting too marginal to justify the huge cost. May as well reap the benefits of the high yields of established processes where the capital and research costs are already paid off. Might not be as exciting, but if it pays the bills then it beats going bust.

    14. Re:Weasel words! by Megol · · Score: 1

      GF bleeds money. They have always bled money. Investors want to earn money, not lose it.

      The problem is how they expect to expand in the future. Slow improvements to FD-SOI manufacturing? Still need development costs, still need skilled researchers and technicians. They can't just kick them all out now and expecting them to come crawling back when GF decides they need them.

      Maybe this is the only real alternative if GF is to survive in some form. Well, time will tell.

    15. Re: Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, they can do it. They aren't some fabless scofflaw.

    16. Re:Weasel words! by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Plus, they are all hitting the wall.

      Actually, no. There are credible roadmaps already to 3nm, and 1nm is a thing (actual trace pitch several times that). Smaller than that is in research, e.g., check out nanoimprint lithography. Carbon technology is also a thing. Even without these exotics, there is still plenty of Moore's law still to come in standard lithography.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re: Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, they can do it. They aren't some fabless scofflaw.

      It isn't that they can't do 10nm, it's that they can't do it without losing money on everything produced. Not in a state where you would want to ramp up production.

      I'm betting that GF was seeing a similar situation with 7nm, especially since it isn't exactly cheap to produce at 7nm anyway, and then your biggest customer (AMD) has a second source that is slightly ahead of you.

      That means they'd be making 7nm parts in such low quantities that they wouldn't make any money at it. So like they said, they'd be better off selling 12LP or 14LPP for now.

    18. Re:Weasel words! by Ramze · · Score: 2

      Love to see the sources for that, because it'd be amazing if true. Best I can find on nanoimprint lithography from the wiki is 10nm -- and that's with overlays. Toshiba got 22 nm and smaller, but no specs on how small.

      Intel is having trouble with 7 nm because it's using 4 masks to get there. So, it's really using older tech with many steps to etch smaller w/ these overlays. If you have to run the silicon through the light 4 times in different positions using different patterns, you can get horrible yields as the slightest deviation will either ruin chips or severely impact their performance.

      Roadmaps don't impress me as they can and do get pushed back as issues arise. I haven't seen anything credible beyond 5 nm -- and that wasn't even using silicon as the substrate.

      that's not to say self-assembling structures and nanotubes won't save the day, but... standard lithography with standard silicon is almost done. No one denies that 5nm is going to be extremely difficult without different materials or exotic methods.

    19. Re:Weasel words! by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

      Intel is having trouble with 7 nm because it's using 4 masks to get there. So, it's really using older tech with many steps to etch smaller w/ these overlays. If you have to run the silicon through the light 4 times in different positions using different patterns, you can get horrible yields as the slightest deviation will either ruin chips or severely impact their performance.

      And yet, that is exactly what TSMC is doing (i.e., no EUV) and they are supposedly ramping up volume production, though I would not bet my life on the truth of this. Intel just pushed it ever so slightly too far with about 10% smaller half pitch than TSMC, and it seems, it just didn't work out. BTW, Intel is not having trouble with 7nm because there is no such thing as Intel 7nm.

      I haven't seen anything credible beyond 5 nm -- and that wasn't even using silicon as the substrate.

      Google "gate all around".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re:Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (beware of sarcasm)

      Love to see the sources for that, because it'd be amazing if true.

      Duh. Don't you read about hardware news here on slashdot and follow the comments?
      It's axiomatically correct, because Intel sucks and AMD rules. Intel is already struggling with 10nm while AMD will bring the much much smaller and more difficult 7nm certainly at the end of this year at a way cheaper price as well. The fact that GlobalFoundries stops all 7nm processes only shows that they were bought by Intel to hurt AMDs progress. We do not question this. Get with the times...

    21. Re:Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSMC is already in the early production phases of 7nm products. I think it's just SRAM to start, but they pretty much have their process ready to go. GF was notably behind.

    22. Re:Weasel words! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Calling bullshit. Around 3nm is a hard limit with current technology. At that point, quantum tunneling comes into full effect, and transistors cannot function.

    23. Re:Weasel words! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That's because:

      1. Each generation represents a large relative leap to the last one (7 nm is literally 50% shrink of a 14nm, and 42% shrink of 12nm).
      2. Theoretical limit of approximately 3nm is getting closer (quantum tunneling).

      Add these two to all the traditional problems you get when you shrink the transistors, like issues with power and leakage, and you have an industry which is very close to hitting a wall of theorethical physics in this particular implementation.

    24. Re:Weasel words! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't split atoms. Thus, you can't go beyond 1nm.

  2. Re: Uh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Look in your pants for a good example of something 7 nanometers

  3. Re:Intel to blame? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMD's contract with GlobalFoundries was ending this year anyway, so AMD doesn't lose anything with this announcement, other than a potential alternate source. In fact, it's entirely possible that GF's failure to secure AMD as a client may have played into their decision to drop 7nm.

    That said, with only Samsung and TSMC on the leading edge now, it does mean that AMD has one less bargaining chip next time negotiations come around (i.e. they can't realistically threaten to go back to GF), whereas Intel will continue using their own processes as they always have. So, at least in that minor regard, I suppose this does benefit Intel and harm AMD somewhat.

  4. Re: Uh? by kurkosdr · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is. And your point is?

  5. Did Moore's law just end? by sbaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did Moore's law just end? Intel said they thought it had...maybe this is confirmation.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what jumped to my mind too. Hmmmm.

    2. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Did Moore's law just end?

      Intel's law ended. For the big asian fabs, density continues to track Moore's law pretty well.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In naming scheme only. Moore's law is dead and Denard scaling even more so.

    4. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the big asian fabs, imaginary density continues to track Moore's law pretty well.

      Just because they say it's 7nm doesn't mean it is 7nm

    5. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Just because they say it's 7nm doesn't mean it is 7nm

      You heard somebody say that, you're not exactly sure what it means but it sounds good, so you reposted it to the internet on the assumption that nobody besides you has ever heard this on the internet.</rant> "Actual" node dimensions, whatever those are, also follow a curve, maybe not exactly the same one as the nominal node name. For example, 7nm half pitch is about 40nm for the 7nm node. (Intel went for 36nm half pitch at its roughly equivalent 10nm node, just a bit too fine, with disastrous results for yield and masking complexity.) You can plot half pitch on a graph over the years and what you see is Moore's law.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by AbRASiON · · Score: 5, Informative

      Firstly, their definition of "7nm" is actually, about the same as Intel 10nm, it's stupid marketing lies and speak.

      Secondly, Intel themselves are stuggling like total crazy to achieve 10nm reliably.

      So, to answer your question, yeah, I think Moores Law is very very close to dead if not dead. Just go look up benchmarks for processors designed 5 years ago, they're still viable now.

      If you compare frequency, IPC, core count, relatively, you'll see the amount of progress we've had in the past 5 years is, atrociously bad, very, very bad.
      This is why mom / pop PCs built even up to 7 years ago, just need 2 more sticks of ram, the dust blown out and an SSD with a Windows re-install, they'll be fine for another 5.

      It's over, no more bleeding edge, insane fast PCs. Just very very small burps forward.

    7. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Did Moore's law just end? Intel said they thought it had...maybe this is confirmation.

      Not quite yet, we have designs for a 4nm transistor made with silicon so I think there's room for one more iteration past 7nm. But yes the end is coming and soon, first half of the 2020s I think you can hold the funeral.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moore's law is about transistor density, not clock speed. Transistor density is still increasing. Consumer processors 5 years ago didn't have 32 cores.

    9. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and then they'll move to diamond.

    10. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      How is transistor density increasing when they are having extreme difficulty shrinking the processes?

      The whole point of this discussion...

    11. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Moore's Law in the phrasing "transistor count per unit area doubles every X months" is probably dying soon. I don't think we've reached the absolute end but we're well out of the exponential section of the curve. We've been lagging since 22nm or so, and transistor shrinks are only going to get slower and slower.

      A tweaked phrasing may still be viable, though: "transistor count per unit money doubles every X months". Near the end of the long 32nm/28nm era, the GPU vendors were making some pretty massive chips, on the order of 600mm^2, and still got perfectly usable yields. Consider what might happen if we get stuck at ~14nm, but keep improving cost and yields so that a 1000mm^2 die or larger becomes viable for a standard consumer-grade part.

      What will that do for performance? It won't help clock speeds, at least directly. We'll probably not spend it all on more cores. Maybe a huge on-die cache, maybe even your entire memory system in ~8GB of on-die SRAM? Or ASICs - smartphone SoCs already have a lot of die space going towards dedicated coprocessors, since they're more bound by power usage anyways, but what would that look like on the PC side? Would an on-die FPGA be useful? I don't know how things would go, which actually makes it kind of exciting compared to "oh hey, transistor density doubled, clock speeds went up a bit and power draw is down. again."

    12. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Only if you only look at Intel processors. Current ARM processors blow away the ones from five years ago. Same with GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA. AMD's current x86 processors are also way faster than their ones from five years ago. It's just Intel that's falling behind.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    13. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Moore's law is about transistor density, not clock speed. Transistor density is still increasing. Consumer processors 5 years ago didn't have 32 cores.

      One, Moore's law is about transistor counter in a densely packed IC. To remain profitability, this implies increased transistor density but it would be sufficient to at times grow the die size to accomodate the transistor growth. Two, consumer processors today do not have 32 cores. High end server AMD processors have 32 cores. Three, if we go by transistor count we can compare a 5 year old i5-3570K (not the most high end of the time) at ~1.4 billion transistors (22nm) vs an ~1 year old i9-7980XE (definitely high end) at ~7 billion transistors (14nm). So, comparing not high end to pretty high end we'd expect ~9.8x (2^3.333) greater than 14 billion transistors for the 7980XE and probably a die feature closer to maybe 7.7nm. And probably, like you say, 32/40 cores (not the 18 it has).

      Really, it's hard to argue by any metric that Moore's law has just been chugging along like normal.

    14. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by UberLord · · Score: 1

      > If you compare frequency, IPC, core count, relatively, you'll see the amount of progress we've had in the past 5 years is, atrociously bad, very, very bad.

      In you only consider Intel, I agree.
      Luckily, AMD with Ryzen begs to differ.

      I bought in with an i4670k oc'ed at 4.2Ghz. That's a 5 y old CPU with 4 cores and 4 hw threads that cost me almost £300 from memory.
      Today I could buy an AMD 2700x for £300 which clocks higher and comes with 8 cores and 16 hw threads.
      So assuming that software can max the cores I can get x4 the performance at the same price point.

      I'm holding our for AMD Zen2, which is slated for 7nm (the topic of this discussion).

    15. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Compare the speed of ONE of your cores at the SAME frequency as the 5 year old CPU. You'll not only find little has changed there.

      Now compare the qty of transistors, per square mm, and little has changed there either.

    16. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSMC had 16nm in 2016, and are releasing 7nm with supposedly 70% density, meaning moores law is already over.

    17. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's over, no more bleeding edge, insane fast PCs. Just very very small burps forward.

      Goddamn bitch, aint you learn anything from the past?

      There's still material science, 3d processors... no, you know what, I'm not even gonna list em.

    18. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Targon · · Score: 1

      AMD not being competitive at the high end of the CPU market is what allowed Intel to sit back and do NOTHING to really advance the PC industry. The moment AMD came up with something that could really compete at the high end, Intel was forced to accept that dual-core is for low end budget machines rather than mainstream, and quad-core should have been seen as the entry level even four years ago.

      Intel had processors that could run at 5GHz four years ago, and they intentionally crippled the ability to run at higher speeds by using a really bad thermal interface material just to make it seem like chips had less overclocking headroom than they really did. So, three to four years where the overclocking potential of Intel chips has not improved.

      Even if 7nm AMD is similar to Intel 10nm, Global Foundries dropping 7nm means they lose an almost guaranteed source of income very close to when 7nm or whatever you call it should be ready to ship in volume for AMD chips, including orders from AMD. The big question at this point is if Global told AMD that it wasn't able to produce enough Ryzen chips at 7nm due to the yields being too low first, or if AMD pulled out due to some other issue.

      Yes, R&D costs a lot, but guess what, if 7nm were as close for them as expected, stopping 7nm this close to release strikes me as a foolish move. It would be like what happened to Zilog where they went from one of the biggest players to a niche CPU producer in only a couple of years due to foolish decisions.

    19. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. The new Nvidia cards take gobs and gobs of power. Same for the Ryzen 2, its TDP is pretty insane on the higher end ones. That is indicative of everyone having the same problems.

    20. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect 7nm is the end of the road, minimal benefits with exponentially increasing costs past this node

    21. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      To be fair, their focus is on what sells. What sells are laptops and servers. What they both need is low power. What the later needs is multiple cores and scalability.

      So what we get produced in volume are low power multiple core processors. There isn't demand for bleeding edge speed, so they aren't building for it.

      It's been trending that way for 5 to 10 years now. I started noticing when they started to have improvement margins between generations of single digits, while getting +25% power savings, as that was the real goal. In fact even the performance margins can be more explained by having the chip run on less power, generating less heat, allowing it to be slightly tweaked to justify a small performance increase across generations.

      Anyway the good old days are likely over baring some sort of magic leap. Now if only all the bitcoin jerks will hurry up and crash and burn so we can afford a decent video card that would be nice...

    22. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My GeForce 1080 uses less power than my old 770. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1768?vs=1714

    23. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ryzen 2990WX is a consumer processor :).
      It has 32 cores. Got shit benchmarks on Windows 10 (except in a few workloads) and good benchmarks in Linux, meaning the Windows 10 scheduler needs to be patched for its weird NUMA set up.
      Granted, it uses four dies. It's a frigging quad CPU on a single bigger socket. It's actually available.

    24. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what is happening indeed with the RTX 2080 Ti; a frigging 754 sq. mm die. Bigger than an Itanium. Albeit 800 sq. mm seems to be about the max, Volta is 815 and that's a non-consumer part.
      Even this 2080 Ti, a frigging GPU, has coprocessors instead of being all traditional GPU.

      AMD Raven Ridge (APU) isn't that big at ~200 sq. mm but that's bigger than i7 8700K die size.

      Good point that we'll get better stuff but if we want power budget to be reasonable then we'll pile up more crap like TCP offloading, JPEG decoding etc. (crypto has already been done, they add newer/bigger algorithms) until there's not much left to add. E.g. buy a new CPU, which takes 0.8 microwatts less when drawing Chinese characters.

    25. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They chase bar graph length. You have to deliberately choose a slower product if you want a lower TDP.
      E.g., AMD has both the Ryzen 2700 and the Ryzen 2700X. The X even somehow tries to maximize power use with some elaborate auto-overclocking that tracks power and temperature in real time. The non-X is the same but slower and uses the same technology to stay under 65 watts, it's excellent and might be the single best CPU for multi-threaded performance per watt.

      For GPUs they mostly choose to maximize performance. A counterexample was the Radeon R9 Nano (which we may call Fury Nano), which was a smaller variant of R9 Fury and Fury X. Maybe you get 80% performance or more at 70% power use but it costs about the same.
      For nvidia you have to buy 1060 or 1050 Ti (though they have less RAM. maybe you'll be able to buy a GTX 2050 Ti with 8GB RAM if you care about that)

      If you care so much you have to underclock and undervolt your stuff (like BIOS options for the CPU, or specific software for the CPU and GPU). Make your stuff 10% power and use 20% less power.
      If you buy a laptop, they made the job of slowing your hardware down already.
      If you buy a phone it's even more so such that if you put some sustained load on it and not just a few seconds of CPU time spent on javascript, it will get twice slower within minutes.

    26. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not 4x, hyperthreading / SMT makes you gain 10% to 30% depending on workload.

    27. Re:Did Moore's law just end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I would want is 32GB RAM for $100, and it could be possible next year.
      I simply want to be able to restore my browser session with way too many tabs and not go to swap hell.. And run two OS at the same time, and a game, and an emulator or two, and something actually useful if I need to do something useful.

      My best rig was when I had a single core 2GHz and 768MB RAM on Windows 98SE. When web pages still catered to users with dial up and 32MB RAM, and games I played were made for 512K to 128MB RAM.
      I had paid that 512MB stick of SDRAM for real cheap about a year after getting the 256MB stick for a similar price.

      Price per gigabyte now is the same as in 2007! iirc I bought two sticks of 1GB for 20 euros. (should have bought four)

  6. Re: Uh? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    The most important thing in my pants is only 2.5 nanometers in diameter.

  7. INTELs slippery little fingers are all over this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    INTELs slippery little fingers are all over this

  8. Another FAB bites the dust by Gabest · · Score: 1

    In the finals: Samsung vs TSMC.

    1. Re:Another FAB bites the dust by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, this is also triple/quad multipatterning (TSMC) vs partial EUV (Samsung). TSMC will likely transition to EUV later in the 7nm node. All eyes should be on trailblazer Samsung to see if EUV is actually economical.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Another FAB bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you know, maybe we don't need another process any more. We just need optimizations in the logic

    3. Re:Another FAB bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      logic optimization is "hard", especially when you have third rate java programmers creating RTL, using C to verilog synthesis tools.

  9. Very strategical. by martinX · · Score: 1

    Wow. Much drastical. Very strategical.

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    1. Re:Very strategical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering why they were taking a drastic strategical turn.
      If I have to read this type of crap too often, I'll take a drastic strategical turn to a more literate website.

    2. Re: Very strategical. by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      I think they meant strategory.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  10. What? Why Now? by mentil · · Score: 1

    Apparently GloFo has been bleeding money for years, and they're not big enough to compete with Samsung and TSMC on the latest nodes and remain profitable. So instead of chasing the latest process shrink, they're targeting niches that are more profitable and less served by the other companies. Despite what the summary implies, they were still pretty far away from volume production of 7nm, for which they're using standard lithography tech at this point. EUV 7nm would come later and require $billions more to get up and running, and it's predicted it won't pay off for them to do this.
    Seems GlobalFoundries is owned by Abu Dhabi, didn't know that.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:What? Why Now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the towel heads have spent too much on buying bombs and trying to make their neighbors into failed states, which is poor economic judgement as well.

  11. Smart by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

    Smart move. There is just too much bleeding edge science and engineering at 7nm, this is a physical reality. Stick with profitable, mature fab tech and iteratively improve it. Get into 7nm when some of the horrible EUV issues have well known solutions, which should carry on to 5nm.

    Meanwhile, the big Asian fabs are said to be ramping 7nm production, but as far as I know, nobody has seen actual parts arrive beyond samples. Certainly not enough to have a good idea about yields. Definitely a believe it when you see it situation. Of course, I hope that Samsung and TSMC have actually overtaken Intel at this transition, and given the economics of the situation it seems inevitable, but we do not have proof it has actually happened yet.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I read somewhere that the EUV issues are about to be solved any day now. The non-EUV version would have been still quadruple patterned process. Didn't the price increase times the patterning, or even to the power of it? Then, after that, there would have still been the issue of yields.

    2. Re:Smart by Targon · · Score: 2

      Yea, until you see that in another four years, everyone will be looking at 7nm and better fab processes, and they are left with nothing that people actually want. Zilog used to be huge in the CPU business back in the 1980s, and while still alive, it is insignificant these days. If 7nm were as close to being ready as it seemed to be at GF, dropping it right now just seems foolish. It would be like EA dropping a title that they had put millions of dollars into developing, everything was set and actually good, but two months before release they just cancel the title because they didn't feel like finishing what would be a very profitable title. Deciding not to do future titles would be one thing, but not finishing up what was already ALMOST done seems foolish.

    3. Re:Smart by Hodr · · Score: 1

      There's an old addage, don't throw good money after bad.

      Sometimes the smart move is to cut your losses and move on, even if you are 90% of the way there (especially if that last 10% cost more than the first 90%)

  12. Re:Intel to blame? by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

    with only Samsung and TSMC on the leading edge now, it does mean that AMD has one less bargaining chip next time negotiations come around

    Weirdest thing would be, AMD contracts with Intel to fab some upcoming GPU. It could happen. Another thing not out of the question: Intel follows AMD and spins off its fabs. Very not out of the question.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  13. silicon is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Si is dead. Dead dead dead. Moore's law died years ago. We're now down to just 3 high end chip foundries, and Intel doesn't sell to competitors. Any chip advancement via silicon will soon be impossible.

    Instead of continuing to spend tens of billions of dollars on what is inevitably going to be an ultra costly dead end is just one of these companies spent it on replacing Si with something like graphene they could have probably have it ready in 5 years or so. The advantages of dozens or hundreds or thousands of times the clock speed at lower power than Si would be impossible to overcome. But instead they plow money into hole so investors can have guaranteed quarterly results.

    1. Re:silicon is dead by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      If you have an idea how to make a production line better than current silicon technologies in only 5 years, you'll be a billionaire.

      But you don't. You're just pulling numbers out of your ass.

    2. Re:silicon is dead by jittles · · Score: 1

      If you have an idea how to make a production line better than current silicon technologies in only 5 years, you'll be a billionaire.

      But you don't. You're just pulling numbers out of your ass.

      He's making room for his foundry.

    3. Re:silicon is dead by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      We are already at the point where speed-of-light delays have a significant effect in limiting clock speed. An improvement of even 10X in clock speed may be something that we'll never see, not in silicon, not in carbon, not in fairy dust.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:silicon is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stream processing can go faster, no sweat. too, some bright soul will stumble upon the idea of using line delays for caching any day now (tm)

  14. IBM loses, too by swschrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IBM's fab in Vermont was sold to GF, and believe it continued to be defense-rated for (nobody's talking) type chips. so folks doing things they shouldn't in places they are not supposed to be are going to be scampering for product nobody should know about. look for Intel to suddenly get its 7nm act together.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re: IBM loses, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chips IBM fabed for three letter agencies are never on the latest node, a good chunk are radiation hardened (emp immune). This stuff is usually on much older and very mature and understood processes.

    2. Re:IBM loses, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM's fab in Vermont was sold to GF, and believe it continued to be defense-rated for (nobody's talking) type chips. so folks doing things they shouldn't in places they are not supposed to be are going to be scampering for product nobody should know about. look for Intel to suddenly get its 7nm act together.

      Hello, is anyone paying any attention?

      GF is owned by Arabs and we are letting the Arabs controlling fabs producing the absolutely advanced chips which keep our nation safe ?!

    3. Re:IBM loses, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those special chips should feel even more comfortable with GF's extra special processes with FD-SOI and integration of wide range of technologies. Or did they do silicon-germanium things in Vermont?

    4. Re:IBM loses, too by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That would only make sense if Essex Jct. were producing on the latest fab and they're not. They do a lot of high-volume chipsets at larger sizes - RF chipsets and game systems chips your probably have heard of or own. The ITAR stuff is minor in terms of volume.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  15. it all comes down to money by swschrad · · Score: 1

    the fab side of AMD was always looking for another buck. nothing has changed.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re: it all comes down to money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD is fabless.

  16. Re:Pathological profit greed is ruining good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if this multi-patterned low yielding stuff is wasteful?
    Samsung and TSMC will still make them at great expense and throw away millions of dead iPhone chips. Billions dollars spent just so that the youngest generation masturbate to porn they watch on their phone.

  17. Re:Pathological profit greed is ruining good thing by sopwith · · Score: 1

    You didn't make it clear how this relates to the story and what you want GlobalFoundries to do. Do you really want them to keep throwing good money after bad when they can't afford to fund the new 7nm node all the way to production? Is the world really better off having them do 7nm when a few other companies expect to be able to do it better?

  18. Re:Pathological profit greed is ruining good thing by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Profit in the wide sense means that you gain from your actions. If you profit on nothing, you die -- soon.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  19. 7nm is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    7nm is hard, heck, 14, 10nm are hard, even 28nm is hard.

    Many more effects, OCV, double, tripple, or quad patterning, not to mention new STA models, fault models, transistor models, extraction models, DRC, ERC and LVS models, all of these cost money.

    phones will likely stay on the 28nm process node for a long long time, and unless you plan to charge $600 for a cpu, it's unlikely that even intel or AMD will go to that node for the consumer level stuff.

    the ROI just isn't there.

  20. Re:Intel to blame? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    it does mean that AMD has one less bargaining chip next time negotiations come around (i.e. they can't realistically threaten to go back to GF)

    It doesn't say that they're never going to compete at 7nm, they're just saying that they're not going to compete right now while it's the cutting edge. From the story:

    Gary Patton admits that GlobalFoundries never planned to be a leading producer of 7-nm chips in terms of volume. Furthermore, the company has been seeing increasing adoption of its 14LPP/12LP technologies by designers of various emerging devices, keeping Fab 8 busy and leaving fewer step-and-scan systems for 7LP products.

    So the main business reasons seem to be related to the fact that they're getting increased demand for their older processes, and can make more money on that then on doing the R&D to be a bit player at 7nm. They'd need a new factory to do both, and they don't think it is worth building a new factory for 7nm right now.

    So I would expect them to be adding 7nm later, when TSMC and Samsung are pushing 5 and 3nm. And by then, AMD may still be on 7nm and happy to switch back. Maybe in 3 years AMD will have their top end chips somewhere else, and most of their volume coming from GF. Totally realistic.

  21. Re:Intel to blame? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Doubt it, since AMD just shifted to TSMC.
    Probably more like GlobalFoundries wasn't confident in the progress they were making, so cut their losses.

  22. Re:Intel to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking GF is going to focus on flash memory devices and work with a less expensive process to deliver vast quantities of hard drive manufacturer destroying chips for less than what it will cost other manufacturers to build out fabs and compete with GF

    This chart (https://www.statista.com/statistics/553556/worldwide-flash-memory-market-size/) shows flash manufacturing flattening out, which signals a HUGE opportunity for a company willing to focus on that market

  23. Re: INTELs slippery little fingers are all over th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's good. Little pilot fish on Slashdot can fret and pump out righteous comments. That's fine. It doesn't matter.

  24. Re:Intel to blame? by Woldscum · · Score: 2

    Lattice Semiconductor Appoints Jim Anderson (former AMD General Manager and Senior Vice President of the Computing and Graphics Business Group. ) as CEO

    https://www.marketwatch.com/pr...

    Lattice Semiconductor Corporation LSCC, a leading provider of customizable smart connectivity solutions, announced the appointment of Jim Anderson as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, and to the Company’s Board of Directors, effective September 4, 2018. Mr. Anderson brings broad technology industry experience and a proven track record of leading and transforming businesses to drive sustained growth and profitability. Mr. Anderson joins Lattice from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) where he served as the General Manager and Senior Vice President of the Computing and Graphics Business Group.

  25. I everyone to make making profil a crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And have us pursue things, that actually improve your and my life.
    Not communism or something like that. But an economy driven by global wealth. Where wealth is real happiness (as opposed to the delusional or drug-based one) and all those material things, plus humanity getting off this rock as the long term goal.

    GF can do quite a lot to help this effort. Like not making profit at all, not being a stock-traded company, paying its employees based on actual work done, and paying that actual work fairly.
    Of course that implies that all the other companies do the same. Othewise GF would be dead by tomorrow. That's obviously implied.

    But I want you and me to help enforce the law that makes it illegal to do the opposite. And hence illegal for those other companies to kill GF.

    Yeah, "they" might call me an idealist or a dreamer.
    But never forget that the ONLY thing stopping it from happening, is them calling it unrealistic and not helping the effort, precisely because they argue others will call it unrealistic and not help the effort... by which they mean *them*. So it does not happen because they don’t make it happen with the argument that they won’t make it happen. Circular reasoning. Which means, *they* are to blame.

    1. Re:I everyone to make making profil a crime. by bws111 · · Score: 2

      So who, exactly, gets to decide what 'real happiness' is? Who gets to decide what 'improves' your life?

      Your ideas aren't stopped by some mystical 'them', they are stopped because they are nothing more than 'the whole world should do what I want'.

  26. Re:Pathological profit greed is ruining good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What motivation would there be for people to take risk? Profit drives innovation and risk taking. It spurs creativity. You don't see a lot of innovation coming from countries that are socialistic. There's a reason for that.

  27. Did Moore's law just end? - Economics by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    The cost of the foundaries has been rising exponentially. While circuit density has been doubling every 18 months, foundary cost has been doubling every 36 months. When Moore's law was proposed the engineering was the main limiting factor in increasing density, it has been shifting though to a financing problem. The result has been few and few foundaries on the bleeding edge. I can't imagine things continuing for another 9 years (3 more doublings). Even if there was only one foundary left at that point it probably wouldn't be economical. There just wouldn't be enough of a market. The other problem is R&D as a percentage of revenue. Basically to stay on top a foundary is now spending 20% of revenue on R&D. Margins aren't going up only volume

    This brings up another dilemma about the last 20 years of economic growth. Much of the recent economic growth has been driven by increases in market size. Companies make more and more specialized widgets for lower and lower costs but are only able to do this because the market size has increased. I can sell to all of North America, then Europe, China and now India. The environment can't even support the 3.5 billion people in the world economy today. Even if we do double that number we can only double one more time.

  28. Re: Uh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She said, "Those were microns."

  29. But GlobalFoundries IS/WAS AMD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just another case of separating the sinking barge from the ship, so employees don’t have to be compensated for being fired. That’s all it is. Psychopath-sneak-level mass-firing.

  30. Re:Intel to blame? by Ramze · · Score: 1

    Possible, but I doubt it. Intel may not be able to figure out how to get 7 nm to work for years. TSMC is the obvious choice for AMD to remain in the lead for CPUs and their only hope for parity on GPUs. TSMC may make them pay more for the best quality silicon and fastest capacity, but it'd be worth it.

  31. Re:Intel to blame? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    with only Samsung and TSMC on the leading edge now, it does mean that AMD has one less bargaining chip next time negotiations come around

    Weirdest thing would be, AMD contracts with Intel to fab some upcoming GPU. It could happen. Another thing not out of the question: Intel follows AMD and spins off its fabs. Very not out of the question.

    Wow, now who got triggered by that? Intel crying uncle on in-house fabs, no so bad, worse could happen.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  32. Re:Intel to blame? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

    If you actually look at the history between AMD and GF, GF being AMD's manufacturing division spun off as it's own company, this is pretty huge for AMD. GF absolutely was going to be their primary supplier of 7nm wafers the same way they're AMD's primary supplier of 12/14nm wafers. Particularly TSMC, who would have been GF's primary competitor in 7nm, simply won't have the capacity AMD needs to spare when Apple, Nvidia, Qualcomm and a whole lot of other companies will all be fighting for their capacity.

    The issue isn't made any better by the fact that the new 7nm processes coming along will be utilizing lithography processes with additional patterns and longer times to etch each of the patterns into the substrate. In other words the output of each production line will be considerably lower than current processes.

    Seriously, if AMD wasn't already in talks with Samsung for 7nm production, their 7nm rollout is going to be very seriously hampered by low manufacturing capacity and will probably affect their bottom line along with both market and mindshare as a thinly veiled paper launch like the initial launch of consumer Vega isn't exactly good for customer relations.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  33. Can't compete with China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most likely. China is far ahead in terms of reliability and production scale, and will probably push below 7nm long before GlobalFoundries can, and possibly other American manufacturers. That's the issue I think.

  34. Re: Intel to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It might harm AMD, but it vindicates their decision to spin off the fab. Dodged a bullet right there.

  35. Re:Intel to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dammit.. I need AMD to keep it together for atleast 2 more years... I want to be able to buy the best CPU on the market in 2 years and I want it to be from AMD!

  36. Big win for AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMD has been somewhat hamstrung by their Wafer Supply Agreement (WSA) with GF for years. It's already well-known that TSMC was ahead of GF in the race to 7nm; in fact, I think TSMC is already in early production of 7nm products.

    In order for AMD to utilize GF's 7nmLP for any of their future products (notably: Zen 2, Vega Refresh, Navi), they would have had to wait months just to get a working node. Meanwhile, TSMC is ready to go.

    AMD had already been using TSMC for some GPUs, and it was generally considered reality that AMD would be forced to use TSMC's 7nm process for Vega Refresh and Navi due to capacity constraints. GF's 7nm delays potentially threatened a timely launch for Zen 2, which should come out in March/April 2019 if they intend to maintain their cadence for Zen products (March 2017 Zen; April 2018 Zen+). There's already talk that AMD has chosen to fab some/all future EPYC processors at TSMC (note that there are no future EPYCs slated for GF 12nm), so it is likely that they already have the design work done on CCXs for GF 7nm done and ready to ship. Adapting their existing work to desktop Ryzen products should be relatively simple, which is why AMD went with their common CCX design for Zen in the first place.

    The only thing that concerns me is that GF's 7nmLP was reportedly capable of higher clocks than TSMC's current 7nm offerings. The hope for 5 GHz 8c/16t Ryzen 3 may be dead. Might be clock limited to 4.4-4.6 GHz.

  37. Diminished returns by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, at these scales of under 100nm, semiconductors have already hit the point of diminishing returns. After all, what are the reasons to do a die shrink, rather than just run a chip production off a fab that's already been up and running, and probably written down? It's cost, and at today's level, things like power consumption and speed are distant followers. But when it costs $10B to build a fab that can do one of these, then going from, say, a 30nm to a 14nm would not give a manufacturer the cost savings they were hoping for.

    Time to tell people downstream who buy these things that the era of continuous price drops is over! In fact, it ended some 10 years ago

  38. What's the future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For faster fabrication:

    1-core 64-bit RISC-V + 7nm process + smaller die + decent larger caches.

  39. Re: Intel to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, WSA runs until 2024. The current amendment covers 2016-2020. In any case it's far from over.