No offense to the guy, but is following the footsteps of GlobalFoundries really something to brag about? Their track record is not exactly clean and even they dropped advanced tech as they could not make it work, and this guy was leading it.
Read what was written in this piece. GF 7nm was pulled because the major shareholder wanted some return on their investment, and 7nm R&D was creating a red hole despite a profitable 14/12nm. It wasn't pulled because it didn't work, it was just a money play.
I dont know if that is accurate Doc. Mubadala kept AMD at 28nm because it was broke. moving to 12/14nm would have been a smart move because AMD would have bought up all the wafer space and would have continued with its wafer agreement. AMD was able to back out of the wafer agreement because of this fact the lack of advancement.
No that is the PR they released. They were also saying they were about to start production of 7nm but the dates they gave and what partners were told did not align up. Let alone if they were already to start production then they already had sunk cost to that point. So to say they stopped right before the switch was thrown after it was already funded and tested does not make sense. Even AMD switched to TSMCs 7nm design well before GF said they were not going to do 7nm and AMD still had contracts with GF at the time that would have blocked such partnerships.
You mean a 14nm they could never get to work and had to license from Samsung? And even then they still had issues ramping it up.
Not really sure where you are going as this is all history that is well known. I know you want to keep good relations but trying to use their BS PR talking points is really lacking.
That's a shortsighted move to say the least. Pull out of R&D in a field where companies live and die via their R&D in order to grab a dividend to afford that new oceanfront property. Simply brilliant.
If there was a business case but the problem was simply lack of short-term profitability, I wonder if they could've raised funds via IPO or maybe bond issue.
dont think we should blame an entire company's failings on one man. especially when those failing might not be failings at all but a business decision.
i actually think its a similar situation with intel. dont think they are really having 10nm problems but just made the choice that if their 10nm cant deliver enough density to make up for the production losses that quad patterning brings they would just stall and move to EUV and if EUV was going to be late they would just move to a more realistic 10nm node (10nm+ in this case). then only use that 10nm sparingly in areas where the power savings makes a huge difference. and if not for a resurgent amd the plan might have worked.
i think they made a bet and they just chose wrong. but if amd hadnt come back and had not gotten on tsmc's 7nm the bet would have paid off. the first 10nm with all those techniques for getting enough density ended up with low clocks in the 2ghz range and poor yields so they scrapped it.
the 96mtr\mm2 density of tsmcs 7nm was for their lp process for cell phones and i assume got about the same clocks as what intel got. the process amd are using is the lpp or hp or whatever and is similar density to what intel have gotten. and since intel are making so few 10nm chips clock speed binning isnt as effective and clocks appear much lower than they would be if intel used 10nm for everything and they could bin those chips out as fodder for dell's cheap i5 business machines.
He was part of the IBM division that GlobalFoundries purchased. Franky the IBM intellectual property is exactly what you pilfer from GlobalFoundries as that is the golden goose and well they aren't doing anything with the golden eggs anyhow.
I guess you worked there and know all the sordid details? They could make it work and even committed to making their process compatible with TSMC, so AMD (and other potential customers, which I doubt they could attract without a Fab expansion) could leverage both foundries because GF wouldn't have enough capacity to meet AMD's needs. https://www.eetimes.com/euv-in-final-push-into-fab...
'GF made the size of its 7-nm pitches and SRAM cells similar to those of TSMC to let designers like AMD use both foundries. AMD “will have more demand than we have capacity, so I have no issues with that,” he said of AMD using the Taiwan foundry.'
What GF had a problem with was: 1) Only BIG customers that need a lot of capacity would probably go to 7nm. 2) 7nm Double and Quad patterning take more time due to increase wafer runs reducing Fab Capacity. 3) 7nm DUV would need to be quickly replace by 7nm EUV which requires big capital outlays. 4) GF probably would need to build a companion building next to FAB8 at Malta to support such an endeavor. 5) GF owner: Mubadala Investment Company was unwilling to continue to pour money into GF to support 7nm expansion that would be needed for GF to compete with the likes of Samsung & TSMC and attract customers for said 7nm process.
not sure if you want ppl from GLO Fo. not sure if any body can remember but they were stuck at what 28nm when everyone was on 14nm +++++ the company tanked AMD's stock price and didnt do anything to get itself out of that hole. what a poor choice of staff
@m53: I would view it as a reasonable possibility. As the foundry business consolidated in the US, only two players left, GF and Intel. As we know, GF experienced several years of rough time, just like Gary Patton, its process engineers may well jump ship to Intel, which was the only place that can utilize their experiences and talents.
Intel at that time was the "leader" Nvidia as well as "stuck" as you say such, so I suppose Nv was "just as guilty"
these things do NOT make themselves...all of them (everyone, for sure including all the fabs) wanted return on mega investments from leading edge process.
it was through various partnerships (from GF, IBM, Samsung, TSMC, ARM et al) that "made it *possible* for us to be on the 16/14/12/7 "not true" nm that we now have.
the history was written about "as it was taking place"
I am certain a good chunk of this was IBM "breaking apart" at the time they had, or "likely" things would have not been pushed (still are being pushed over a very large section of the tech industry)
just shows how expensive these things are overall, as am sure GF, TSMC, Samsung, Intel etc would not want to be sinking billions into developing something they have little if any choice but to "move on" and spend billions more to try something different instead.
This is great news for Intel - bringing a substantial base of leading edge process knowledge from GF to be folded into the behemoth; hopefully he will also be giving Anandtech periodic updates and insights to the changing industry.
Interesting move considering that slides recently leaked about Intel's foundry plans for the next decade (spoiler: they are aiming for 1.4 nm). The death of 7 nm at GF is indicative that while the scientists and engineers can get a manufacturing process up and running, the economics may not play out to be viable. The 7 nm transition throughout the industry is expensive due to everyone wanting to leverage EUV at some point. Moving to 5 nm class will again incur an increase in capital expenses but the delta will not be as large. However, we are entering an era where moving to new nodes will have the bean counters have a greater say in the matter. A leading edge fab for 5 nm should be around $12 billion to construct with 3 nm expected to be north of $15 billion (note that the context is for new construction which tends to last for several generations with retro fits and does not include R&D costs for node development which is also several billion independently).
What is capable in the labs is not the same as bringing it to mass production. 5 nm initially appears to be fine in the labs but as Intel's 10 nm process can attest to, volume production is another matter.
I would expect much great R&D on technology to move away from lithography processes going forward. Optical circuits and grown organic circuits have been demonstrated in lab environments. The feasibility of migrating those techniques to a mass production line in an economically fashion was seen as difficult. With lithography pricing continuing to increase, exploring alternatives becomes more and more attractive, even to the accountants.
The optics are not necessarily good, but I will admit, before I saw this, I was just thinking it would be hilarious if Intel ended up contracting Global Foundries to get them through the 10nm issues, and now, here it is!
In fairness this may be a far better move than it looks on the surface. Every foundry has bad patches. Recall that TSMC's issues with 130nm hammered nVidia for years before they got it sorted out. It is quite possible that GF got their 7nm technical issues sorted out just in time to find they had no more market for their parts.
@IanCutress I do respect you and what you do but based on what you mention here is just pathetic a$$ k!$$!ng. This guy here only wants to blow his own horn (e.g., write and edit his own Wikipedia page, right now posting his web coverage on his LinkedIn page). This is a guy who strives to toot his accomplishments which is mainly achieved by who knows who. Let me highlight his successes to you 1) IBM struggled with 32nm yield transfers it to GF which a decade ago starts yielding better than IBM 2) IBM struggled with 20nm which later got transferred to GF, it failed 3) IBM struggled with 14nm and were the only ones with SOI platform, thankfully for Sanjay 14nm was transferred from Samsung which helped GF. 4) This guy comes down to GF decides to do 10nm based on 14nm, then decides to do 7nm and the rest is history.
He has been a complete failure at IBM and GF other than the fact that he shows successes with the failures. Starting 2008 till now he has not helped either IBM or GF develop a profitable technology.
Thanks to his position he probably got an umbrella package and a so-called retirement from GF. I do wish it would have been not the case.
A classic example of fake it till you make it and the sad reality
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
Back to Article
Marlin1975 - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
No offense to the guy, but is following the footsteps of GlobalFoundries really something to brag about?Their track record is not exactly clean and even they dropped advanced tech as they could not make it work, and this guy was leading it.
Ian Cutress - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
Read what was written in this piece. GF 7nm was pulled because the major shareholder wanted some return on their investment, and 7nm R&D was creating a red hole despite a profitable 14/12nm. It wasn't pulled because it didn't work, it was just a money play.nunya112 - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
I dont know if that is accurate Doc. Mubadala kept AMD at 28nm because it was broke. moving to 12/14nm would have been a smart move because AMD would have bought up all the wafer space and would have continued with its wafer agreement.AMD was able to back out of the wafer agreement because of this fact the lack of advancement.
Marlin1975 - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
No that is the PR they released. They were also saying they were about to start production of 7nm but the dates they gave and what partners were told did not align up. Let alone if they were already to start production then they already had sunk cost to that point. So to say they stopped right before the switch was thrown after it was already funded and tested does not make sense. Even AMD switched to TSMCs 7nm design well before GF said they were not going to do 7nm and AMD still had contracts with GF at the time that would have blocked such partnerships.You mean a 14nm they could never get to work and had to license from Samsung? And even then they still had issues ramping it up.
Not really sure where you are going as this is all history that is well known. I know you want to keep good relations but trying to use their BS PR talking points is really lacking.
PeachNCream - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
That's a shortsighted move to say the least. Pull out of R&D in a field where companies live and die via their R&D in order to grab a dividend to afford that new oceanfront property. Simply brilliant.mode_13h - Saturday, December 14, 2019 - link
If there was a business case but the problem was simply lack of short-term profitability, I wonder if they could've raised funds via IPO or maybe bond issue.bobhumplick - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
dont think we should blame an entire company's failings on one man. especially when those failing might not be failings at all but a business decision.i actually think its a similar situation with intel. dont think they are really having 10nm problems but just made the choice that if their 10nm cant deliver enough density to make up for the production losses that quad patterning brings they would just stall and move to EUV and if EUV was going to be late they would just move to a more realistic 10nm node (10nm+ in this case). then only use that 10nm sparingly in areas where the power savings makes a huge difference. and if not for a resurgent amd the plan might have worked.
i think they made a bet and they just chose wrong. but if amd hadnt come back and had not gotten on tsmc's 7nm the bet would have paid off. the first 10nm with all those techniques for getting enough density ended up with low clocks in the 2ghz range and poor yields so they scrapped it.
the 96mtr\mm2 density of tsmcs 7nm was for their lp process for cell phones and i assume got about the same clocks as what intel got. the process amd are using is the lpp or hp or whatever and is similar density to what intel have gotten. and since intel are making so few 10nm chips clock speed binning isnt as effective and clocks appear much lower than they would be if intel used 10nm for everything and they could bin those chips out as fodder for dell's cheap i5 business machines.
FreckledTrout - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
He was part of the IBM division that GlobalFoundries purchased. Franky the IBM intellectual property is exactly what you pilfer from GlobalFoundries as that is the golden goose and well they aren't doing anything with the golden eggs anyhow.Freeb!rd - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
I guess you worked there and know all the sordid details? They could make it work and even committed to making their process compatible with TSMC, so AMD (and other potential customers, which I doubt they could attract without a Fab expansion) could leverage both foundries because GF wouldn't have enough capacity to meet AMD's needs.https://www.eetimes.com/euv-in-final-push-into-fab...
'GF made the size of its 7-nm pitches and SRAM cells similar to those of TSMC to let designers like AMD use both foundries. AMD “will have more demand than we have capacity, so I have no issues with that,” he said of AMD using the Taiwan foundry.'
What GF had a problem with was:
1) Only BIG customers that need a lot of capacity would probably go to 7nm.
2) 7nm Double and Quad patterning take more time due to increase wafer runs reducing Fab Capacity.
3) 7nm DUV would need to be quickly replace by 7nm EUV which requires big capital outlays.
4) GF probably would need to build a companion building next to FAB8 at Malta to support such an endeavor.
5) GF owner: Mubadala Investment Company was unwilling to continue to pour money into GF to support 7nm expansion that would be needed for GF to compete with the likes of Samsung & TSMC and attract customers for said 7nm process.
nunya112 - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
not sure if you want ppl from GLO Fo. not sure if any body can remember but they were stuck at what 28nm when everyone was on 14nm +++++ the company tanked AMD's stock price and didnt do anything to get itself out of that hole.what a poor choice of staff
Ian Cutress - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
You may want to check what staff were involved with that at the time and where they are now.hunter168 - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
Maybe the staff who were involved in the development of GF 28nm are at Intel developing 10nm now :)m53 - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
@hunter168: Or maybe you are just trolling at the wrong website... Hint: This is not Wccftech :)hunter168 - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
@m53: I would view it as a reasonable possibility. As the foundry business consolidated in the US, only two players left, GF and Intel. As we know, GF experienced several years of rough time, just like Gary Patton, its process engineers may well jump ship to Intel, which was the only place that can utilize their experiences and talents.Dragonstongue - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Intel at that time was the "leader" Nvidia as well as "stuck" as you say such, so I suppose Nv was "just as guilty"these things do NOT make themselves...all of them (everyone, for sure including all the fabs) wanted return on mega investments from leading edge process.
it was through various partnerships (from GF, IBM, Samsung, TSMC, ARM et al) that "made it *possible* for us to be on the 16/14/12/7 "not true" nm that we now have.
the history was written about "as it was taking place"
I am certain a good chunk of this was IBM "breaking apart" at the time they had, or "likely" things would have not been pushed (still are being pushed over a very large section of the tech industry)
just shows how expensive these things are overall, as am sure GF, TSMC, Samsung, Intel etc would not want to be sinking billions into developing something they have little if any choice but to "move on" and spend billions more to try something different instead.
Sychonut - Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - link
I am a fap veteran too.Antony Newman - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
This is great news for Intel - bringing a substantial base of leading edge process knowledgefrom GF to be folded into the behemoth; hopefully he will also be giving Anandtech periodic updates and insights to the changing industry.
AJ
Kevin G - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Interesting move considering that slides recently leaked about Intel's foundry plans for the next decade (spoiler: they are aiming for 1.4 nm). The death of 7 nm at GF is indicative that while the scientists and engineers can get a manufacturing process up and running, the economics may not play out to be viable. The 7 nm transition throughout the industry is expensive due to everyone wanting to leverage EUV at some point. Moving to 5 nm class will again incur an increase in capital expenses but the delta will not be as large. However, we are entering an era where moving to new nodes will have the bean counters have a greater say in the matter. A leading edge fab for 5 nm should be around $12 billion to construct with 3 nm expected to be north of $15 billion (note that the context is for new construction which tends to last for several generations with retro fits and does not include R&D costs for node development which is also several billion independently).What is capable in the labs is not the same as bringing it to mass production. 5 nm initially appears to be fine in the labs but as Intel's 10 nm process can attest to, volume production is another matter.
I would expect much great R&D on technology to move away from lithography processes going forward. Optical circuits and grown organic circuits have been demonstrated in lab environments. The feasibility of migrating those techniques to a mass production line in an economically fashion was seen as difficult. With lithography pricing continuing to increase, exploring alternatives becomes more and more attractive, even to the accountants.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 14, 2019 - link
Those node names were ASML's - not Intel's. ASML drew those on a copy of Intel's roadmap slide they got a hold of.HarryVoyager - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
The optics are not necessarily good, but I will admit, before I saw this, I was just thinking it would be hilarious if Intel ended up contracting Global Foundries to get them through the 10nm issues, and now, here it is!In fairness this may be a far better move than it looks on the surface. Every foundry has bad patches. Recall that TSMC's issues with 130nm hammered nVidia for years before they got it sorted out. It is quite possible that GF got their 7nm technical issues sorted out just in time to find they had no more market for their parts.
garyisgod - Tuesday, December 17, 2019 - link
@IanCutress I do respect you and what you do but based on what you mention here is just pathetic a$$ k!$$!ng. This guy here only wants to blow his own horn (e.g., write and edit his own Wikipedia page, right now posting his web coverage on his LinkedIn page). This is a guy who strives to toot his accomplishments which is mainly achieved by who knows who. Let me highlight his successes to you1) IBM struggled with 32nm yield transfers it to GF which a decade ago starts yielding better than IBM
2) IBM struggled with 20nm which later got transferred to GF, it failed
3) IBM struggled with 14nm and were the only ones with SOI platform, thankfully for Sanjay 14nm was transferred from Samsung which helped GF.
4) This guy comes down to GF decides to do 10nm based on 14nm, then decides to do 7nm and the rest is history.
He has been a complete failure at IBM and GF other than the fact that he shows successes with the failures. Starting 2008 till now he has not helped either IBM or GF develop a profitable technology.
Thanks to his position he probably got an umbrella package and a so-called retirement from GF. I do wish it would have been not the case.
A classic example of fake it till you make it and the sad reality