Samsung Scales 10nm FinFET Mountain, Products To Ship In 2017

[Guest]

Samsung announced that it is the first company in mass production of an SoC (System On a Chip) built on a 10nm FinFET process. Samsung's 10nm process will have at least two iterations, with the 10LPE process serving as the lead vehicle.

Samsung Scales 10nm FinFET Mountain, Products To Ship In 2017 : Read more

 

[jkhoward]

Will they also explode?

 

[josejones]

Globalfoundries, TSMC, AMD and even Samsung may be sued for false advertising as their nm claimed sizes are completely false as a 14nm is closer to 20nm but they still name it 14nm and the recent claims by AMD of skipping 10nm and going to 7nm is false - it's more like 14nm. This is huge news and everybody should be made aware:

Understanding how foundries name their process nodes: Intel’s 10nm versus TSMC 10nm and beyond

"The answer lies in the fact that Intel’s naming standards and TSMC’s naming standards are drastically different. Intel’s processes use the same backbone as the advertised node (a 14nm process will use a 14nm backbone) while as all pure play foundries use a mixture of process technologies. TSMC’s 16nm FinFET tech for example uses a 20nm backbone (BEOL). So it is almost a certainty that they will be using a 14nm BEOL for their ’10nm finfet’ node.

"Let me explain a bit further, the process names that foundries use have now become more or less marketing material and not accurate physical descriptions of the node (except maybe in the case of Intel). Simply marketing a node as 7nm FinFET or 10nm FinFET does not make it a true 7nm or 10nm node respectively. I think the most relevant benchmark in this case (in my attempt to explain the point) is that of the Transistor Gate Pitch. This is the measure which is usually a very good indicator of the “true” node that a foundry might be using."

http://wccftech.com/intel-losing-process-lead-analysis-7nm-2022/

http://semiengineering.com/to-7nm-and-beyond/

So when Globalfoundries, TSMC, AMD and Samsung claim they have a 14nm it's more like 20nm and their 10nm is more like 14nm and their 7nm it's more like 10nm. Sorry. I wish it were true too but, it's not their 7nm is more like 10nm.

;

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Globalfoundries, TSMC, AMD and even Samsung may be sued for false advertising as their nm claimed sizes are completely false as a 14nm is closer to 20nm but they still name it 14nm and the recent claims by AMD of skipping 10nm and going to 7nm is false - it's more like 14nm. This is huge news and everybody should be made aware:

Understanding how foundries name their process nodes: Intel’s 10nm versus TSMC 10nm and beyond

"The answer lies in the fact that Intel’s naming standards and TSMC’s naming standards are drastically different. Intel’s processes use the same backbone as the advertised node (a 14nm process will use a 14nm backbone) while as all pure play foundries use a mixture of process technologies. TSMC’s 16nm FinFET tech for example uses a 20nm backbone (BEOL). So it is almost a certainty that they will be using a 14nm BEOL for their ’10nm finfet’ node.

"Let me explain a bit further, the process names that foundries use have now become more or less marketing material and not accurate physical descriptions of the node (except maybe in the case of Intel). Simply marketing a node as 7nm FinFET or 10nm FinFET does not make it a true 7nm or 10nm node respectively. I think the most relevant benchmark in this case (in my attempt to explain the point) is that of the Transistor Gate Pitch. This is the measure which is usually a very good indicator of the “true” node that a foundry might be using."

http://wccftech.com/intel-losing-process-lead-analysis-7nm-2022/

http://semiengineering.com/to-7nm-and-beyond/

So when Globalfoundries, TSMC, AMD and Samsung claim they have a 14nm it's more like 20nm and their 10nm is more like 14nm and their 7nm it's more like 10nm. Sorry. I wish it were true too but, it's not their 7nm is more like 10nm.

;

I agree, there is a lot of 'slop' in the marketed measurements, but we usually have to wait until a report from a third-party analysis firm, such as TechInsights, before we can attain positive verification of the actual process used for the BEOL. Marketing horseplay at its finest, but unfortunately, most of the reports that detail the actual measurements are very expensive.

 

[Emanuel Elmo]

Unless that goes wireless and they improve there sensor and reliability as a brand maybe then I will think of switching from my logitech g900.

Otherwise.... no thank you.

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

Does it really matter what the nm number is? That is not the number that is important. All that matters is that there is progress. Actually, if they are lying about the numbers, then maybe that is a good thing because it means that there is even further to go before the nm physics limit is hit.

 

[bit_user]

AMD will probably have at most 1 CPU product cycle before they fall behind on process, again. Yay. And, given GF's track record, Intel will probably ship product on 7 nm before they do.

The word "or" is important, as it might indicate that you cannot have higher performance and lower power consumption at the same time.

No, it's just the classic power/performance tradeoff. There's a power vs. performance curve, and they're telling you two points on it: "if you hold performance the same, you get this power savings" and "if you hold power the same, you get that performance". But that's not saying you can't pick any point in between (or beyond), depending on your power budget & thermal envelope.

 

[bit_user]

Globalfoundries, TSMC, AMD and even Samsung may be sued for false advertising as their nm claimed sizes are completely false as a 14nm is closer to 20nm but they still name it 14nm and the recent claims by AMD of skipping 10nm and going to 7nm is false - it's more like 14nm. This is huge news and everybody should be made aware:

According to semiaccurate, Samsung's lead over Intel is real. Even taking into account Intel's second-gen 14 nm process:

http://semiaccurate.com/2016/09/01/intel-finally-narrows-14nm-process-technology-gap-samsung/

 

[josejones]

Understanding how foundries name their process nodes: Intel’s 10nm versus TSMC 10nm beyond

"The answer lies in the fact that Intel’s naming standards and TSMC’s naming standards are drastically different. Intel’s processes use the same backbone as the advertised node (a 14nm process will use a 14nm backbone) while as all pure play foundries use a mixture of process technologies. TSMC’s 16nm FinFET tech for example uses a 20nm backbone (BEOL). So it is almost a certainty that they will be using a 14nm BEOL for their ’10nm finfet’ node.

Let me explain a bit further, the process names that foundries use have now become more or less marketing material and not accurate physical descriptions of the node (except maybe in the case of Intel). Simply marketing a node as 7nm FinFET or 10nm FinFET does not make it a true 7nm or 10nm node respectively. I think the most relevant benchmark in this case (in my attempt to explain the point) is that of the Transistor Gate Pitch. This is the measure which is usually a very good indicator of the “true” node that a foundry might be using."

http://wccftech.com/intel-losing-process-lead-analysis-7nm-2022/

;

 

[bit_user]

Understanding how foundries name their process nodes: Intel’s 10nm versus TSMC 10nm beyond

Repost.

wccftech is also a weak source. They have a track record of leeching their content from other sites, rather than doing any original reporting. I wouldn't trust them, if I had any alternatives.

 

[josejones]

wccftech cites its sources - if you actually read the article you'd know that. It's not wccftech I worry about - i simply don't trust YOU and could not care less about your opinion. So, you can stop responding and wasting my time. It has already been well documented that you are wrong and your previous link was presented here fallaciously as they were talking about timing to get new products out for release. No matter how much you don't like it, no matter how much you can't handle the truth the fact still remains:

Understanding how foundries name their process nodes: Intel’s 10nm versus TSMC 10nm beyond

"The answer lies in the fact that Intel’s naming standards and TSMC’s naming standards are drastically different. Intel’s processes use the same backbone as the advertised node (a 14nm process will use a 14nm backbone) while as all pure play foundries use a mixture of process technologies. TSMC’s 16nm FinFET tech for example uses a 20nm backbone (BEOL). So it is almost a certainty that they will be using a 14nm BEOL for their ’10nm finfet’ node.

Let me explain a bit further, the process names that foundries use have now become more or less marketing material and not accurate physical descriptions of the node (except maybe in the case of Intel). Simply marketing a node as 7nm FinFET or 10nm FinFET does not make it a true 7nm or 10nm node respectively. I think the most relevant benchmark in this case (in my attempt to explain the point) is that of the Transistor Gate Pitch. This is the measure which is usually a very good indicator of the “true” node that a foundry might be using."

http://wccftech.com/intel-losing-process-lead-analysis-7nm-2022/

;

 

[bit_user]

you can stop responding and wasting my time.
...
No matter how much you don't like it, no matter how much you can't handle the truth the fact still remains:

Hey, if you don't want to discuss it, you can always unsubscribe from the thread. But reposting the same stuff and trying to shout down people you disagree with is not the kind of conduct that's well-tolerated, here.

It has already been well documented that you are wrong and your previous link was presented here fallaciously as they were talking about timing to get new products out for release.

Documented where? Did you read it? It certainly compares their actual process nodes.

 

[bit_user]

Also relevant. Basically, they argue that GF's 14 nm node is really 20 nm, and that their 7 nm node is really 14 nm.

http://semiaccurate.com/2016/09/26/globalfoundries-7nm-process-isnt-even-close-name/

 

[josejones]

LOL, thanks for making my point for me, that article totally says exactly what I've been saying so, you are just trolling to argue for argument sake. I am merely sharing info people need to be aware of:

14nm = 20nm ; 7nm = 10/12nm except Intel is far better and much closer to the claim. so what are you even arguing for

Globalfoundries 7nm process isn’t even close to the name
http://semiaccurate.com/2016/09/26/globalfoundries-7nm-process-isnt-even-close-name/

 

[bit_user]

so, you are just trolling to argue for argument sake.

First, please support your accusation of trolling with details. So far, the only trolling behavior I've seen has been a certain repeated posting of the same copypasta and then attacking me when I pointed it out.

Secondly, I didn't think we were arguing over any facts. The only point of disagreement seems to be whether wccftech is a reputable source, which is not a case I care to litigate. After your first repost, I merely pointed out their poor track record, which is why I don't typically read them. Maybe they've gotten better. I don't know and I don't really care.