Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the change-of-plans dept.

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.

19 of 114 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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: 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

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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."
  4. 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 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.

  5. 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?
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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'.