Friday, November 29th 2019
Samsung Scores PC CPU Manufacturing Order from Intel
Samsung has reportedly secured a "PC CPU" manufacturing order from Intel. This would entail Intel using Samsung's fabs to manufacture its processors. "PC CPU" is a broad term, interchangeable with "client CPU," and could include both notebook and desktop processors, spanning the "S," "H," "U," and "Y" silicon variants (mainstream desktop, mainstream notebook, ultrabook, and ultra low-power, respectively). Samsung's bouquet of contract-manufacturing covers not just silicon fabrication across 14 nm, but also sub 10 nm nodes, but also provides other key stages of processor manufacturing, including bumping and packaging. Intel would want minimal expenditure in adapting its chip designs to Samsung's nodes
In her November 20 letter addressed to Intel's customers, executive V-P and GM for sales, marketing, and communications, Michelle Johnston Holthaus, mentioned that in addition to Intel's own manufacturing facilities, the company is roping in "foundries" (third-party silicon fabrication companies) to meet demand. Samsung and TSMC lead the foundry business, followed by the likes of GlobalFoundries, UMC, etc.
Many Thanks to biffzinker for the tip.
Source:
Pulse News Korea
In her November 20 letter addressed to Intel's customers, executive V-P and GM for sales, marketing, and communications, Michelle Johnston Holthaus, mentioned that in addition to Intel's own manufacturing facilities, the company is roping in "foundries" (third-party silicon fabrication companies) to meet demand. Samsung and TSMC lead the foundry business, followed by the likes of GlobalFoundries, UMC, etc.
30 Comments on Samsung Scores PC CPU Manufacturing Order from Intel
List of semiconductor fabrication plants en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants
I'm sure Samsung wont ever look in to the designs for what your getting them to make... They just wouldn't do that kind of thing...
And in case you've missed it: low power SoCs is a big chunk of what Intel makes, which really takes away any sense from your theory - assuming it was true (but it isn't :)).Why would they?
Owning fabs is their great advantage right now.
Does that mean the CPU is bad?
Though, should be revised by now for Samsung and especially TSMC – as the latter advanced to 5nm already and will likely ramp it even faster than their 7nm (which by itself in fact even started (!) with a +↑70% yield already in march, yielding them the single most successful first-yield any process has ever reached within the last 5 years). Hope you may find it useful anyway.
SmartcomNo, in fact quite the contrary.
The then 14nm LPP process from Global Foundries, which was used for the first generation of Ryzen, Threadripper & Epyc, was actually explicitly designed for mobi-le and ultra-portable SoCs such as Apple's A10, Qualcomm's Snapdragon or MediaTek's Helio - it was designed for extreme efficiency but low clock rates. This was never a process for desktop processors - it was de facto completely unsuitable for such or at least much less suitable for it, since you potentially obliterated the high-clock potential of desktop CPUs or at least couldn't exploit it.
... and the fact that AMD with Ryzen was still able to archive 3.6-4 GHz while still staying extremely efficient on a mobile process at that time, shows quite deeply the efficiency and grandiose architecture of Ryzen. Even the Threadripper in its first generation managed to hit 4.2 GHz at its peak – which is even 1.2 GHz more than the node should have been even able to achieve in the first place, as 14nm LPP was only specified for some theoretical maximum of around +3 GHz, at least theoretically and on paper.
Smartcom
Actually Intel is selling more than ever, with 2019Q3 revenue roughly equal to record 2018Q3 (at similar or lower prices).
They're slightly down in consumer segment (because of AMD), but exploded in DataCenters.
So this is a real problem. They make at least as many chips, while some of their production lines are transitioning to 10nm - which doesn't help for sure...
My 1700X as other first generation Zen products hit a frequency limit and a power wall at around 4 Ghz while other products from Intel manged to reach much higher clocks while maintaining much better power efficiency. That's a clear indication that the node was unfit for high performance processors. That's literally the whole point, Samsung isn't a provider of high performance nodes, first gen Zen is proof of that.
My 1700X also came out in 2017 and was up against a stagnant lineup of underwhelming products from Intel so it did well enough. Things have changed however, Intel has pushed their current node so far they are facing performance regressions with 10nm and AMD isn't stagnating, they deliver product after product, innovation after innovation.
The clock is ticking and Intel can't get away with a sub-par node like AMD did back then.
wccftech.com/intel-has-tapped-samsung-foundries-to-manufacture-cpus/
I just mentioned your 1700X, not for you to defend it, but to show you that because it is a low power process, it doesn't mean the product is bad or has poor performance.
By the way, if this is true, we don't even know what kind of CPU Samsung would produce, it could very well be laptop CPUs where efficiency prevailed over clocks. That's why I did not agree with your comment that only TSMC is worth it.