There seemed to be a few different stories being melded together and I
clearly remember that the 5% number came from someone mixing one set
of numbers from one story with another bit from a different story.
Possibly more than one 5% source as well. At any rate my "reference" is
gone... one might think due to protest from "someone".
It's always hard
to separate fact from rumor.
Certainly. I'm not saying that this isn't a problem, just that it's a
different problem than yields and therefore has a different solution.
Of course, IBM also seems to have some yield problems as well to go
along with this design issue.
Obviously IBM has more familiarity with its own process and I'd suspect
that their designers are well versed in how to design for it.
90nm is proving to be a tough nut to crack, IBM's having some
problems, Intel's 6+ months late and still having lots of trouble, AMD
has delayed their parts for a good 4-6 months and it still remains to
be seen how well they'll deliver. Definitely more problems going
around this time than with the 130nm process.
Hmmm, until AMD went to IBM though, they were in serious trouble with 130nm
as well - lost them ~9months. Someone else has also suggested that the IBM
problem may be that they are preoccupied with getting product out for AMD.
It could also be that the "failure" was with Chartered who is a cohort of
some kind of IBM; possibly some of the lower clocked foundry chips were
targeted for sub-contracted production at Chartered.
It is important to remember that TSMC and UMC are after a slightly
different goal with their production. For them it's largely a minimum
cost function, while top-end performance is not as important. I would
guess that a company like Intel could get about as much performance
out of a design at 130nm as TSMC/UMC could get at 90nm. However the
latter would achieve that performance at a much lower price point.
TSMC and UMC are still coming out ahead here because they can offer
similar performance for lower price, but I don't see them taking over
all the world's production just yet. A lot of companies still seem
very interested in using IBM as a foundry for high-end parts.
Yes and don't forget the problems they (TSMC definitely and UMC?) had with
130nm, which was one of the reasons that nVidia, Qualcomm et.al. went
looking for alternatives... and found IBM. Whatever their position in the
market, whether lower down the performance scale, they have both definitely
enhanced their reputation in the business. We'll see if VIA sticks with
IBM now... and how long IBM takes to do the expansion they've already
applied for planning permission for at East Fishkill.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??