Some Alder Lake SoCs won't have performance cores

Fulljack

Posts: 78   +72
Read again: "Without TSMC 7nm AMD would have even better GlobalFoundries 7nm."

GlobalFoundries had 7nm around six to nine months from mass production phase when they decided to pull plug. One of main reasons (perhaps even biggest) for that was TSMC's 7nm capacity was so large. GF even made their process dimensions quite close what TSMC had so customers could easily change from TSMC to GF and vice versa. However GF's process was designed to reach higher clock speeds than TSMC's process, making it more suitable for many AMD products.

GF surely considered (among everything else) that TSMC's 7nm capacity + GF's 7nm capacity would be near oversupply. And applying that to future ultra-expensive 5nm and 3nm nodes, it was worth abandoning. Despite all development costs (quite huge) already spent.

Yeah, GF clearly underestimated 7nm demand. If they would have continued 7nm development into production phase, there would be much less chip shortage etc. But how many semiconductor companies correctly predicted demand that Covid caused? None?

But basically, without TSMC's 7nm node, AMD would have used GF 7nm node. And surely would not have been abandoned.
Cool story, bro... Source? AFAIK even GloFo admitted back in 2018 that demands will get higher as they put it in their press release.

“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.

To what I gather, GloFo stop developing their own 7nm due to lack of financial incentives to do so. high profit yet high entry, so they decided to better support their 12/14nm offering instead.

Also, accordinf to Ian Cutress of Anandtech, AMD has always been designing Zen 2 using TSMC 7nm CLNFF from the start, so the argument of using GloFo are totally 100% what ifs scenario. as AMD never bet on using GloFo 7nm even when they're in development phase.

 

HardReset

Posts: 1,677   +1,331
You are talking nonsense. GF 7nm does not exist and would not have existed if AMD didn’t choose TSMC. TSMC saved AMDs bacon big time.
It did exist, was ready (or less than three months away) for tape-out phase and main reason it was cancelled was TSMC.

Just like Intel's 10nm production did exist as early as 2018. There you go https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...38121u-processor-4m-cache-up-to-3-20-ghz.html

It took around 3.5 years after that to launch first 10nm desktop CPU's but hey, it did exist back then...
Cool story, bro... Source? AFAIK even GloFo admitted back in 2018 that demands will get higher as they put it in their press release.

“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.

To what I gather, GloFo stop developing their own 7nm due to lack of financial incentives to do so. high profit yet high entry, so they decided to better support their 12/14nm offering instead.
Lack of demand likely resulted from TSMC's plans to make much bigger 7nm output which they did. At that point Intel's 10nm could produce ~3 GHz dual core chip, so basically only GF's real competition was TSMC. This GF agreed as 7LP dimensions were deliberately made very close TSMC's 7nm process dimensions.

There we basically have it. Because TSMC could produce so many wafers GF feared there are not enough customers for their 7nm and future 3nm node and/or GF's 7nm capacity was too small to be profitable. IF TSMC would have less 7nm production, demand for GF 7nm would have been higher and there would have been less fear about overcapacity.
Also, accordinf to Ian Cutress of Anandtech, AMD has always been designing Zen 2 using TSMC 7nm CLNFF from the start, so the argument of using GloFo are totally 100% what ifs scenario. as AMD never bet on using GloFo 7nm even when they're in development phase.

Not so much:
Keep in mind that AMD’s first 7 nm product was designed for TSMC’s CLN7FF from the beginning, so the company did not bet on GF’s 7LP in late 2018 anyway, and no rush with the manufacturing technology was needed for GF’s key customer.
First, that does not say anything from Zen2. Secondly, AMD's CEO admitted they are planning to use both GF and TSMC for 7nm: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1231...n-exclusive-interview-with-dr-lisa-su-amd-ceo
LS: So in 7nm, we will use both TSMC and GlobalFoundries. We are working closely with both foundry partners, and will have different product lines for each. I am very confident that the process technology will be stable and capable for what we’re trying to do.
Third, WSA did not allow AMD to use other foundries than GlobalFoundries for 7nm, but GF did gave AMD permission to use TSMC because they did not have capacity for everything AMD needed at that time. Also first GF 7nm tape out was to be AMD processor. Source for both above and also making 7nm process dimensions close to TSMC process there: https://www.eetimes.com/euv-in-final-push-into-fabs/?page_number=2

From those it's very easy to say AMD was going to make high clock, low core CPU's (=Ryzen) at GF and low clock, high core CPU's (=Epyc chiplets) at TSMC. As GF dropped 7nm, AMD just used backup plan: x570 chipset as IO die and TSMC chiplets as compute die.
 

zamroni111

Posts: 358   +210
Intels process for this is named 10nm. And prices indicate that there appears to be more availability for Intels stock than Ryzen 5000. Right now Alder lake is cheaper, faster and more in stock.
Because amd is prioritizing to sell the chiplets as epyc server processors, rather than ryzen desktop processor, for the sake of much higher profits.