Monday, August 27th 2018

GlobalFoundries Puts its 7 nm Program on Hold Indefinitely

GLOBALFOUNDRIES today announced an important step in its transformation, continuing the trajectory launched with the appointment of Tom Caulfield as CEO earlier this year. In line with the strategic direction Caulfield has articulated, GF is reshaping its technology portfolio to intensify its focus on delivering truly differentiated offerings for clients in high-growth markets.

GF is realigning its leading-edge FinFET roadmap to serve the next wave of clients that will adopt the technology in the coming years. The company will shift development resources to make its 14/12nm FinFET platform more relevant to these clients, delivering a range of innovative IP and features including RF, embedded memory, low power and more. To support this transition, GF is putting its 7nm FinFET program on hold indefinitely and restructuring its research and development teams to support its enhanced portfolio initiatives. This will require a workforce reduction, however a significant number of top technologists will be redeployed on 14/12nm FinFET derivatives and other differentiated offerings.

"Demand for semiconductors has never been higher, and clients are asking us to play an ever-increasing role in enabling tomorrow's technology innovations," Caulfield said. "The vast majority of today's fabless customers are looking to get more value out of each technology generation to leverage the substantial investments required to design into each technology node. Essentially, these nodes are transitioning to design platforms serving multiple waves of applications, giving each node greater longevity. This industry dynamic has resulted in fewer fabless clients designing into the outer limits of Moore's Law. We are shifting our resources and focus by doubling down on our investments in differentiated technologies across our entire portfolio that are most relevant to our clients in growing market segments."

In addition, to better leverage GF's strong heritage and significant investments in ASIC design and IP, the company is establishing its ASIC business as a wholly-owned subsidiary, independent from the foundry business. A relevant ASIC business requires continued access to leading-edge technology. This independent ASIC entity will provide clients with access to alternative foundry options at 7nm and beyond, while allowing the ASIC business to engage with a broader set of clients, especially the growing number of systems companies that need ASIC capabilities and more manufacturing scale than GF can provide alone.

GF is intensifying investment in areas where it has clear differentiation and adds true value for clients, with an emphasis on delivering feature-rich offerings across its portfolio. This includes continued focus on its FDXTM platform, leading RF offerings (including RF SOI and high-performance SiGe), analog/mixed signal, and other technologies designed for a growing number of applications that require low power, real-time connectivity, and on-board intelligence. GF is uniquely positioned to serve this burgeoning market for "connected intelligence," with strong demand in new areas such as autonomous driving, IoT and the global transition to 5G.

"Lifting the burden of investing at the leading edge will allow GF to make more targeted investments in technologies that really matter to the majority of chip designers in fast-growing markets such as RF, IoT, 5G, industrial and automotive," said Samuel Wang, research vice president at Gartner. "While the leading edge gets most of the headlines, fewer customers can afford the transition to 7nm and finer geometries. 14nm and above technologies will continue to be the important demand driver for the foundry business for many years to come. There is significant room for innovation on these nodes to fuel the next wave of technology."
Add your own comment

44 Comments on GlobalFoundries Puts its 7 nm Program on Hold Indefinitely

#26
Valantar
FordGT90ConceptThey have no choice because their sugar daddy stopped giving them more sugar. They're hoping they can sell enough 14 nm chips to dig themselves out of the hole they are in. It's a gamble because if someone manages to move beyond 7-10 nm, 14 nm becomes far less attractive.

TL;DR: GloFo is no longer an innovation company, just a production company that will license other company's fab tech.
Yep, pretty much. No wonder they've stopped investing, though, given that they've already sunk ~20 billion into them and would need to double that to build a new fab - which would still place them at a disadvantage compared to bigger competitors with more fab capacity. And sure, 14nm will become less attractive in time, but at the same time, it'll by then be a well-established and likely very cheap process. If their proposed developments pan out, it'll still have its uses. Not to mention that I don't think we'll see anything noticeably better than TSMC 7nm for the next 5-ish years. EUV might make an entrance, but it's unlikely we'll see significant process improvements post-7nm for quite a while. And they'll likely be able to licence Samsung 7nm or something similar for relatively cheap by then.
Posted on Reply
#27
efikkan
hatHuh? I thought things got cheaper on smaller nodes... at least, once you have one running successfully.
Price per transistor may go down if the yields are good and the production speed is high enough. But the cost savings usually comes into play towards the end of the node's lifecycle.

The problem with 7nm is not just the yields, but the yields in combination with the slow patterning on the DUV process. Even with more transistors per wafer, the production speed of first generation 7nm is so slow that it becomes too costly.

The big elephant in the room is EUV, this is supposed to be the key to 7nm's success. We don't know for sure if EUV will be ready anytime soon, so we might be looking at either a slower 7nm adoption phase, or limited quantities for a long time.
FordGT90ConceptWhat does this mean for Zen 2 and Navi?
I assume it will mainly impact the mid- to lower end products. Even if GF didn't give up 7nm, TSMC would still be the only one shipping at 7nm through most of 2019. And as I've mentioned before, even if we're optimistic, the shipping volume of 7nm in the first half of 2019 will be very limited. GF was supposed to ship several quarters later than TSMC anyway, so it will most likely slow down the transition period rather than delay the first Zen 2 products.

There are a couple of things I would like to know, like how many production lines does TSMC have for 7nm compared to 16/12nm, and how much of this is reserved for Nvidia.
FordGT90ConceptTL;DR: GloFo is no longer an innovation company, just a production company that will license other company's fab tech.
I thought they already were just licensing Samsung's technology (14nm FF).
Posted on Reply
#28
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
efikkanThere are a couple of things I would like to know, like how many production lines does TSMC have for 7nm compared to 16/12nm, and how much of this is reserved for Nvidia.
AMD's orders will dwarf NVIDIA. GPUs are useless without CPUs.
efikkanI thought they already were just licensing Samsung's technology (14nm FF).
They are. That's why GloFo is on 14nm at all. Licensing is very expensive too. I'm under the impression that GloFo never actually reported a net profit.
Posted on Reply
#29
efikkan
FordGT90ConceptAMD's orders will dwarf NVIDIA. GPUs are useless without CPUs..
Most of the production capacity is booked years in advance, on TSMC "16/12nm" Nvidia ended up using all of it for Pascal and Volta/Turing, even using some from Samsung on 14nm as well. Nvidia will certainly have tried to book as much as possible of 7nm, and would need about twice as many production lines as on 16/12nm to produce the same volume of wafers. AMD who wants to make CPUs and GPU will require even more of that, if they can get it.
Posted on Reply
#30
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
AMD has no choice. AMD will get what TSMC can make.
Posted on Reply
#31
Valantar
FordGT90ConceptAMD has no choice. AMD will get what TSMC can make.
That's not true. AMD can go with Samsung if necessary.
Posted on Reply
#32
medi01
efikkanNvidia will certainly have tried to book as much as possible of 7nm
To produce what? A competitor to glorious sold out "shit can be even more expensive than you'd think" 2xxx series with that RTX stuff that cripples perf so much that even 1080p is not enjoyable?

I think you don't realize what the game here is.
AMD is an underdog with highly limited resources. As game theory goes, its only chances are GAMBLING.
Focus resources on a single thing (as you don't have money for more than one) and pray to Cthulhu for it to succeed.
Vega, HBM, HBM2, 7nm, you name it.

We were told they bet on 7nm, we were told GF sucks as much or even more than most suspected.

I wish I knew what release of 7nm Vega actually means in terms of fab process maturity.
Posted on Reply
#33
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
ValantarThat's not true. AMD can go with Samsung if necessary.
Samsung announced they successfully prototyped it back in May. They're quite a ways behind TSMC.
Posted on Reply
#34
Valantar
FordGT90ConceptDon't think Samsung has achieved 7 nm for processors yet.
Key word there being "yet". TSMC will (likely) get them there first, but Samsung is still a fall-back option.
Posted on Reply
#35
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Not when they're already working on everything for TSMC 7 nm. To switch to Samsung at this point would basically require starting over.
Posted on Reply
#36
Valantar
FordGT90ConceptNot when they're already working on everything for TSMC 7 nm. To switch to Samsung at this point would basically require starting over.
Of course this would incur very significant delays. All I'm saying is that TSMC still isn't their only option. Adding nuance, not contradicting ;) Besides, AMD is likely to have known about this shift for at least a couple of quarters, and if necessary, could have started porting designs to Samsung 7nm (or at least looking into the possibility of this) a while ago.
Posted on Reply
#37
WikiFM
After some hours readying about process nodes, I discovered that since 2012 each foundry creates its own process node. I concluded that TSMC is ready with its 7nm because its 7nm are simplier than the 10 nm of Intel. How did I get that idea? Well according to official guidelines about the physical properties of transistors of the ITRS, the specs hasn't been fullfilled by TSMC since its 16 nm, which is more similar to its 20 nm than the official 16/14nm spec. Even its 12nm is more similar to its 20nm than the official 16/14 nm spec.

But TSMC hasn't been the only one cheating, Samsung's 10 nm is actually 14 nm according to the official specs, and Samsung's 14 nm is actually more similar to its 20 nm than the official 16/14 nm spec too. I feel so stupid for not knowing all these before, I really believed that each process node was the same for every foundry.

Sources: en.wikichip.org/wiki/WikiChip Nodes 22 nm to 7 nm
www.semiconductors.org/clientuploads/Research_Technology/ITRS/2015/0_2015 ITRS 2.0 Executive Report (1).pdf pages 38, 48
Posted on Reply
#38
R0H1T
ValantarOf course this would incur very significant delays. All I'm saying is that TSMC still isn't their only option. Adding nuance, not contradicting ;) Besides, AMD is likely to have known about this shift for at least a couple of quarters, and if necessary, could have started porting designs to Samsung 7nm (or at least looking into the possibility of this) a while ago.
IIRC GF & Sammy were collaborating on 7nm, not 100% sure, like they did with 14nm? If so moving to Samsung won't be that hard or costly IMO.
Posted on Reply
#39
Valantar
R0H1TIIRC GF & Sammy were collaborating on 7nm, not 100% sure, like they did with 14nm? If so moving to Samsung won't be that hard or costly IMO.
I believe I've seen reporting saying the same quite a while ago, but my impression is that this was early speculation/based on inaccurate information, and that GF had since moved on to their own design. Given that Samsung hasn't been mentioned in any of the reporting around this cancellation, I still believe that's the case.
Posted on Reply
#40
nemesis.ie
@WikiFM This has been known for a long time. Marketing is marketing.

The important factor is how much improvement we see from a given foundry's node to their next node, what they call it is less important.

TSMC's "7nm" will be a substantial improvement from their current "12nm". We will see how the end products perform and that will be the real metric.
Posted on Reply
#41
WikiFM
nemesis.ieTSMC's "7nm" will be a substantial improvement from their current "12nm". We will see how the end products perform and that will be the real metric.
You are forgetting TSMC's 10 nm which is the real newest node, this is the one to compare to 7 nm. 12 nm is just polishing of its 16 nm process.
Posted on Reply
#42
nemesis.ie
Good point. Things are also made trickier by the fact that Zen and Vega are both on GF's 14/12nm(+) at the moment rather than TSMC's processes.
Posted on Reply
#43
WikiFM
Vega at 12 nm? I havent read that anywhere, as far as I know Vega is still (for better or worse) in 14 nm
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jul 18th, 2024 13:27 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts