Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Blog

28nm: The Last Node of Moore's Law

NO RATINGS
9 saves
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 4 / 5   >   >>
resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Intel Processors
resistion   3/20/2014 11:34:04 PM
NO RATINGS
Some evidence for Intel single patterning is provided by Intel:

http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/presentation/silicon-technology-leadership-presentation.pdf

But their fin pitch I read somewhere else is beyond standard single patterning.

http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/plenty-of-room-at-the-bottom-intel-thinks-so/

So I am not sure if that counts as double patterning. If so then Intel 22 nm is already afflicted by double patterning.

Or_Bach
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Intel Processors
Or_Bach   3/20/2014 10:43:20 PM
NO RATINGS
Unlike the foundries we don't really know enough about Intel to analyze the transistor or their SoC costs. We do know that the for the foundries 28nm is the last node of Moore's Law. As to Intel it might help you reach your own conclosing if you read our blog: Intel vs. TSMC: an Update  <http://www.monolithic3d.com/2/post/2014/01/intel-vs-tsmc-an-update.html>

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Intel Processors
resistion   3/20/2014 9:53:39 PM
NO RATINGS
It's a good question, it might be just to differentiate from Intel's 22 nm. But the aggressive DP cost might be too high to be tolerated by customers, maybe they'll go for 16 nm to get FinFET benefit (if any) as well.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Intel Cost Slides
resistion   3/20/2014 9:50:38 PM
NO RATINGS
EUV is now being considered for 7 nm insertion with double patterning (10 nm insertion decision point past). I am not sure if that is an improvement to the cost curve. The source power target is not fixed, has to keep moving up.

alex_m1
User Rank
CEO
Re: Intel Processors
alex_m1   3/20/2014 8:56:43 PM
NO RATINGS
22nm vs 28nm is just margin case because no need for double patterning yet(according to intel). Why hasn't TSMC just migrated to 22nm without it ? Or is really hard to make 22nm work with single patterning ?

 

buprestid
User Rank
Freelancer
Intel Processors
buprestid   3/20/2014 7:38:20 PM
NO RATINGS
Here is the link to die sizes from 32 to 22nm. Die sizes haven't decreased to possible compensate for extra die cost. Intel margins have also stayed the same.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/5

Broadwell is right around the corner. Lets see what their die sizes are at 16nm. Perhaps SRAM amount will stay the same to compensate for poor SRAM scaling.

Intel is a good example to use since they don't need to take a margin hit in desktops and and servers. If 16nm really costs the same as 22nm they will have to reduce the die size by 50% to give the same margins.

 

 

buprestid
User Rank
Freelancer
Intel Cost Slides
buprestid   3/20/2014 7:20:00 PM
NO RATINGS
See slide 36. The cost per transistor is fallling. Also note that they are already in production of 22nm so the chart so its not some hypothetical guess.

http://mindspace.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/INTC_investor_meeting_2013_IM_Smith.pdf


Everyone agress we are close to the end of Moore's law, but not there yet. EUV @10nm will make 10nm cost effective.

 

 

 

Zeev00
User Rank
Rookie
Re: 28nm really lowest cost?
Zeev00   3/20/2014 6:21:03 PM
NO RATINGS
The industry is in a deep dodo -- 450mm (infinitely?) delayed, EUV (infinitely?) delayed, and even pure logic transistors cost is not dropping anymore. One can believe Intel's charts if one chooses to but, clearly, their life is at stake over this question, so they must be optimistic or short their own stock. Everyone else's data shows level cost at best, somewhat up realistically.

 

But this blog brings the other whammy to the table -- memory shrink ... that barely happens anymore. Which means that complex chip cost below 28nm will go up. Significanly.

 

No. The sky will not fall. But many companies' stocks will.

Or_Bach
User Rank
Rookie
Re: 28nm really lowest cost?
Or_Bach   3/20/2014 5:53:36 PM
NO RATINGS
It will be nice to see TSMC or Intel showing better cost of transistors. What I have seen out there is density chart which is actually do not result in reduce transistor cost due to the higher wafer cost. BUT this is well known by now, the real problem is the SoC costs !, it will be nice if you really read the blog before posting comments. Please look again at the SRAM density chart from the recent ISSCC 2014. If effectively the density increase from 28nm to 16nm is about 10% than the SoC cost will much higher at 16nm. Unless you can show data that is different you need to admit that 28 nm costs would be the cheapest for SoC for a while. And you are advise to read a previous blog published by EE Times " Why 450mm Will Be Pushed-Back Even Further" http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1321239& , which provide additional support to the problem with embedded SRAM scaling. So regardless if you like monolithic 3D or not the 28nm is the last node of Moore's Law.

buprestid
User Rank
Freelancer
28nm really lowest cost?
buprestid   3/20/2014 4:47:12 PM
NO RATINGS
I don't think 28nm has the cheapest cost per transistor. Is the author just pushing monolithic 3d?

1. Directly contradicts Intel Slides that show cost per transistor falling @22 and @16

2. You would see huge margin pressure at Intel shipping their 22nm Finfet devices if in fact it was so much more expensive. The die sizes and chip prices are similar to their 32nm products. 

The slides by Nvidia/Broadcom are best guesses and were made long before 20/16 were ready.

TSMC also has slides showing cost per transistor going down @20 and @16.

<<   <   Page 4 / 5   >   >>
Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week