Tuesday, March 5th 2024

Samsung Foundry Renames 3 nm Process to 2 nm Amid Competition with Intel

In a move that could intensify competition with Intel in the cutting-edge chip manufacturing space, Samsung Foundry has reportedly decided to rebrand its second-generation 3 nm-class fabrication technology, previously known as SF3, to a 2 nm-class manufacturing process called SF2. According to reports from ZDNet, the renaming of Samsung's SF3 to SF2 is likely an attempt by the South Korean tech giant to simplify its process nomenclature and better compete against Intel Foundry, at least visually. Intel is set to roll out its Intel 20A production node, a 2 nm-class technology, later this year. The reports suggest that Samsung has already notified its customers about the changes in its roadmap and the renaming of SF3 to SF2. Significantly, the company has reportedly gone as far as re-signing contracts with customers initially intended to use the SF3 production node.

"We were informed by Samsung Electronics that the 2nd generation 3 nm [name] is being changed to 2 nm," an unnamed source noted to ZDNet. "We had contracted Samsung Foundry for the 2nd generation 3 nm production last year, but we recently revised the contract to change the name to 2 nm." Despite the name change, Samsung's SF3, now called SF2, has not undergone any actual process technology alterations. This suggests that the renaming is primarily a marketing move, as using a different process technology would require customers to rework their chip designs entirely. Samsung intends to start manufacturing chips based on the newly named SF2 process in the second half of 2024. The SF2 technology, which employs gate-all-around (GAA) transistors that Samsung brands as Multi-Bridge-Channel Field Effect Transistors (MBCFET), does not feature a backside power delivery network (BSPDN), a significant advantage of Intel's 20A process. Samsung Foundry has not officially confirmed the renaming.
Sources: ZDNet, via Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

34 Comments on Samsung Foundry Renames 3 nm Process to 2 nm Amid Competition with Intel

#1
Daven
Lol. And yet some here still try to compare nodes based on nanometers. I hope everyone keeps changing the names so no one can win any internet arguments anymore.
Posted on Reply
#3
FoulOnWhite
Samsung rep "sure cough it's cough 2nm"
Posted on Reply
#4
AleksandarK
News Editor
Battler624Whats the point of names then?
Names of semi nodes started to become obsolete since 1997. And that is older than me. No correlation between name and actual dimension. They have been a purely marketing strategy since.
Posted on Reply
#5
SOAREVERSOR
AleksandarKNames of semi nodes started to become obsolete since 1997. And that is older than me. No correlation between name and actual dimension. They have been a purely marketing strategy since.
I'm older than you and this type of thing has always gone on with technology. Most of what people think of a "specs" is often gibberish and voodoo but that doesn't stop "enthusiasts" from arguing over it.
Posted on Reply
#6
Double-Click
Pffft they think they can compete in the name game with Intel?
That's a hold my beer category for them :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
wNotyarD
Double-ClickPffft they think they can compete in the name game with Intel?
That's a hold my beer category for them :laugh:
Easier to compete with Intel in the naming game rather than the roadmap game.
Posted on Reply
#8
Daven
Double-ClickPffft they think they can compete in the name game with Intel?
That's a hold my beer category for them :laugh:
I’m waiting for them to get names down into the Quantum RealmTM. I want my chips to fit in the space between the atoms.
Posted on Reply
#9
A Computer Guy
Eagerly awaiting for the term "blast processing" to come back into fashion.
Posted on Reply
#10
wNotyarD
A Computer GuyEagerly awaiting for the term "blast processing" to come back into fashion.
Samsung should be smart enough not to use "blast" with anything involving their hardware :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#11
Denver
What's the point? This only makes the process specs look worse compared to competing analogs(TSMC 2nm). It seems like something taken from the intel playbook... We know how well this is going.
Posted on Reply
#12
Eternit
Maybe they all should start naming their technologies with versions or years like Intel node 2024. Samsung already does this with smartphones while Apple uses versions.
Posted on Reply
#13
phints
These names are such a joke. Reminds me of "1ms" gaming monitors when the best IPS still refresh around 5ms and the best VA like 10ms not even counting the horrendous amount of overshoot they have at that speed.
Posted on Reply
#14
john_
Well, I guess marketing justifies ridiculousness....
Posted on Reply
#15
qlum
john_Well, I guess marketing justifies ridiculousness....
At first I thought it made no sense after all the consumers of those nodes know better. But for consumers saying your chip is a 3nm or a 2nm design does have value, even if the name carries no real value.
Posted on Reply
#16
Wirko
I'll wait for the good man Charlie Demerjian to write Part 3 of his series. I guess he'll do it before my popcorn cools off.

Part 1

Part 2
Posted on Reply
#17
Fouquin
DavenLol. And yet some here still try to compare nodes based on nanometers. I hope everyone keeps changing the names so no one can win any internet arguments anymore.
The best part of this, as I've mentioned in another thread, is that Intel changed their 5nm to 2nm to align with TSMC and Samsung's roadmaps that were boasting 4/3/2nm scale nodes. So now Samsung is changing their 3nm to 2nm in the face of Intel's 5nm that is now 2nm, but Samsung's 3nm was already only a minor process optimization of their 4nm which was itself just a tweak of 5nm which is what the actual new process is from 7nm LPP which was previously '8nm' process but now with EUV.

I don't mind them changing the name if they actually make an impact on density, like with their 3rd gen 7LPP the minimum cell density increased about 10%, but changing the names just so the number on the paper matches the competitor's number on their paper is a race to the bottom. Now you may as well just claim that your new process is at the atomic scale and uses planck-scale superconducting carbon nanotube wires extracted from the essence of unicorn horn.
Posted on Reply
#18
Wirko
SOAREVERSORI'm older than you and this type of thing has always gone on with technology. Most of what people think of a "specs" is often gibberish and voodoo but that doesn't stop "enthusiasts" from arguing over it.
PMPO.

I mean, if you're old enough, you're familiar with this acronym and the amount of exaggeration associated with it. It was (well, still is) worse than any imaginary nanometers.
Posted on Reply
#19
AusWolf
And I'll rename my idleness to hard work.
Posted on Reply
#20
starfals
Why stop at 2 Samsung? Just go all the way down to 1 lol. It will look really advanced and good on paper. People that dont know anything will praise you for being the best. If you will lie, go full out or don't bother imho!
Posted on Reply
#21
LabRat 891
Can I get whatever Reality Altering Device Intel and Samsung are using?

Because I'm totally 6ft 10in
for marketing purposes :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#22
theouto
Waiting for Samsung to publish their own "core truths" type slide deck against TSMC. Maybe call it "the scale of truth".

(Yes, I suck at naming things)
Posted on Reply
#23
wNotyarD
theoutoWaiting for Samsung to publish their own "core truths" type slide deck against TSMC. Maybe call it "the scale of truth".

(Yes, I suck at naming things)
Is this your application for a job at Intel?
Posted on Reply
#24
theouto
wNotyarDIs this your application for a job at Intel?
With how terrible my ability to name things is, I like my odds.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 3rd, 2024 07:05 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts