Congratulations to the Intel team on a phenomenal engineering achievement. Keeping the cost per transistor going down by doing higher aspect ratio fins, boosting drive current and lowering transistor area needed is great.
I wonder, though, whether Intel can really boast that Moore's Law is alive and well... the yield challenge of high aspect ratio fins cost a year of delays (thereby the cost per transistor went down by 2x after 3 years instead of 2)... it also caused loss of face for Intel with major customers like Apple.
Buprestid You do realize you are comparing a shipping product to a conference paper presentation. Real SRAM cell sizes are substantially larger than what is advertised at conferences. I guess in a few years wwhen they get aroundto sshipping 14nm we will know.
Yes head to head comparisons are tough, but in this case Intel is not showing a PowerPoint but an actual product. TSMC will not ship anything they define as 14nm for at least a year, and in volume even later. Historically their SHIPPING SRAM sizes have been 10-20% larger than what has been advertised in papers, probably to meet SNM and other requirements.
A question that always comes up for me when I see Mark Bohr boasting about Intel's process technology load over TSMC:
Intel may show TSMC having higher gate pitch x metal pitch. But I think the true comparison would be cost per transistor. TSMC owns significantly cheaper fabs than Intel, thanks to much better government incentives than exist in Taiwan (vs. the US). My experience is that the cost difference can be ~30% or sometimes even more. I wonder if Intel really has a significant lead in cost per transistor?
To be fair TSMC has never said they are equal density at 16nm node (they said will catch up at the 10nm node).
Asking to other engineers: TSMC and Samsung cells are 1T fin, Intel cell is 2T fins so the comparison is not fair.
Very likely both TSMC and Samsung will utilize a larger 2T cell for faster phone SOCs, still it is only a my idea. Sure the 1T cofiguaration is a limiting factor in abailable clock speed ad low power consumption.
We'll see Intel SOC process, it is unlikely an even smaller cell footprint for certain applications with 1T layout, like is happened on 22nm with the 1T 0.092um2 cell.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.