Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gate last better? Not so fast say some

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 28, 2010 11:03:16 PM

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4208861/IBM--fa...

Til its out and in mass production, we wont know
I guess theres followers and then theres leaders, we shall see

More about : gate fast

a c 127 à CPUs
September 28, 2010 11:59:13 PM

Even if they go gate first instead of gate last, they are still following suit. Intel claimed that HK/MG was the best way to go in order to continue the process advancements. AMD and most other semiconductor related companies said it wasn't needed. Now AMD and the others are all trying to get their own HK/MG going.

Of course they claim no problems but the push backs and delayed technology says otherwise. There has been little to no word on BD being out in Q1/Q2 2011 and not even a small amount of news. I would imagine that IF GloFlo, IBM and the others had no problems with HK/MG that it would be on track for a release near the same time a SB hits.

Some people think that Intel just magically came upon this but its not quite like that. They did years of reasearch using many different materials and it took them a lot of time to get it just right.

Until we see it in action, Gate first/Last will be fought out. I doubt there is anything significant to gate first. Just like SOI, there is a reason why Intel went the other way. SOI has great potential in some areas but sucks at smalled nodes when it comes to yield. So there is a reason why Intel went to gate last instead.
m
0
l
September 29, 2010 12:07:13 AM

All I know is, theyre all copying IBM using silicon too.

Also, no one said it was never needed, it when when they thought theyd need it applied.

Also, since its being mainly driven by GF, and its turmoil of ownership, some delays are expected there, as well as the other partners non need to have it as well, in the DT cpu environ, yes its different, but AMDs voice is one of many here.

Ive left this open as a question, because til its here, we simply dont know

Claiming to know BD is just waiting in the wings for this, I cant make such a claim, can anyone here?
Either AMD is kickin butt in dev, and is waiting, or theyve timed it out just right, and still, we dont know how good itll be today
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
September 29, 2010 12:26:16 AM

BD has to go to at least 32nm. I doubt it will work as well on 45nm. In fact all their info from AMD has shown its said to be 32nm HK/MG. Unless they found a way to also do 32nm SOI non HK/MG at the same time as they are pushing 32nm HK/MG, then it will be HK/MG.

But I tend to watch Intel as a idea of whats going to be next in the process technology. While their arch may not always be the best (Netburst) their process tech is pretty much top of the line no matter who you look at or ask. Intel stayed away from SOI for a reason. AMD went with it because they rely on IBM for newer stuff due to not having the deep pockets Intel does. Its also why they have a consortium for HK/MG.

If Intel didn't go gate first there is a reason. As I siad before, Intel started researching this quite a bit back because they saw a problem using just Silicon. Hafnium was the answer after many trials and errors.

SOI was skipped by Intel because they saw that the yields were not worth the investment. I would imagine its something much like that for gate first or something else.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2010 12:34:26 AM

Hmm, the only actual fact we know is that GF has delayed their SOI 32nm node due to "yield ramp" problems. This does tend to agree with what TSMC (and Intel) pointed out as problems with the gate-first approach - having to cook the hafnium formula to survive the annealing temperatures, which according to Intel anyway means that the Hi-K gate is tuned to survival rather than optimum leakage.

But, I agree with JDJ that we need to wait until shipping products can be compared to each other, as all the article quotes & promises are from paid mouthpieces :D .
m
0
l
September 29, 2010 12:35:51 AM

True, but also, that was then, and that was Intel, as each does things slightly different.
Who knows, it could become a very nice process, one that may be better or not
Tho, since both sides have alot of monies tied into their own approaches, its not surprising each promotes its own, and it was Intel that said AMD would need it at 45nm also, and they also use bulk, and shunned soi years back, but people learn
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2010 1:07:10 AM

^ From what I've read about the diminishing returns with SOI at lower nodes, I tend to agree with Jimmy about SOI not being worth it, esp. given the 1/3rd extra wafer cost.

There was the IEEE article I linked to over a year ago, about the 2 giga-pascal strain benefits that gate-last gave Intel.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
September 29, 2010 5:20:39 AM

^As I said before, Intel doesn't just go. They see which will benefit the process first.

There is a reason why they are the leader in the process tech.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2010 2:52:50 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^As I said before, Intel doesn't just go. They see which will benefit the process first.

There is a reason why they are the leader in the process tech.


yeah, it's those genius engineers!

Oh wait - that's AMD!!

Sorry jennyh :D ...

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2010 5:11:47 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't/isn't IBM been using HK/MG since ~2005ish? Would the not have perfected HK/MG by now after all these years?

And yeah, I agree with jimmy. Intel has been doing damn well with their HK/MG (since what? 65nm?Which would mean 3 gens?). With the research budget that Intel has (albit a bit smaller compared to IBM's full R&D budget IIRC) I'm pretty sure Intel found out about something that AMD/IBM,et al are missing about HK/MG.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
September 29, 2010 7:18:56 PM

^45nm was Intels first foray into HK/MG so 32nm is second gen with 22nm going for 3rd gen unless they find something better for 22nm than Hafnium.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2010 8:16:38 PM

^Unobtanium would be a good choice for 22nm I hear. :lol: 
m
0
l
September 29, 2010 10:24:41 PM

jimmysmitty said:
BD has to go to at least 32nm. I doubt it will work as well on 45nm. In fact all their info from AMD has shown its said to be 32nm HK/MG. Unless they found a way to also do 32nm SOI non HK/MG at the same time as they are pushing 32nm HK/MG, then it will be HK/MG.


SOI and HKMG aren't mutually exclusive, that's why Bulldozer has both.

Quote:
Intel stayed away from SOI for a reason.


Yes, cost. Cost per wafer is higher with SOI, and intels business revolves around selling many wafers worth of chips. Much more than AMD can make.


Quote:
AMD went with it because they rely on IBM for newer stuff due to not having the deep pockets Intel does. Its also why they have a consortium for HK/MG.


IBM are in the Fishkill Alliance and they have deeper pockets than Intel. The Fishkill Alliance exists to share the future cost burden of chip manufacture.

Quote:
SOI was skipped by Intel because they saw that the yields were not worth the investment. I would imagine its something much like that for gate first or something else.


No, intel has never used SOI because it would be too expensive for them. They had never used immersion lithography until 32nm where they were forced to use it. This is the same as AMD being forced to use HKMG at 32nm - both are required at 32nm or it just doesn't work. SOI is different, it's a choice made by AMD which allows them to pay a small extra cost per wafer, but gain more in other ways like lower power draw. This is what lets AMD stay close even with a year or so lag on process.
m
0
l
September 29, 2010 10:27:22 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Hmm, the only actual fact we know is that GF has delayed their SOI 32nm node due to "yield ramp" problems. This does tend to agree with what TSMC (and Intel) pointed out as problems with the gate-first approach - having to cook the hafnium formula to survive the annealing temperatures, which according to Intel anyway means that the Hi-K gate is tuned to survival rather than optimum leakage.


GF hasn't delayed their 32nm SOI node, AMD delayed Llano because of yields learnings. Llano has a powerful gpu on-die, and no gpu has been made using SOI or HKMG yet.

It's got nothing to do with gate first.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2010 8:25:46 PM

Hmm, unless you actually work at AMD or GF, you're limited to the same sources we are, which is Dirk Meyer's statements at the Q2 earnings report:

Quote:
"Llano - our Fusion APU offering aimed at the higher end of the client market - is generating positive customer response. However, in reaction to Ontario’s market opportunities and a slower than anticipated progress of 32 nm yield curve, we are switching the timing of the Ontario and Llano production ramps. Llano production shipments are still expected to occur in the first half of next year," said Dirk Meyer, chief executive officer of AMD, during a conversation with financial analysts.

...

"We have seen the rate of yield leaning below our plans on 32nm. [...] We take a bit more time to work on the 32nm yields up the curve. So, the effective change [...] to our internal plans on Llano amounts to a couple of months," said Mr. Meyer.


I don't see anything in his statement that denies problems with GF's 32nm node. And XBitlabs hasn't ruled out problems with GF: "Earlier it was expected that AMD will start to ship its Llano accelerated processing units (APUs) for revenue already in Q4 2010 with official product launch taking place sometime very early in 2011. It is not clear whether AMD has problems wedding the Llano design to the 32nm SOI fabrication process, there are issues with the process itself or the design of the Llano has certain flaws."

So, do you work for AMD or GF??
m
0
l
a c 117 à CPUs
September 30, 2010 8:36:59 PM

Uhhhh ...

Yall can toss out enough supposition to overflow the Grand Canyon.

As far as we know at this point the issue on the yield ramp could have as much to do with the GPU transition to SOI as the gate approach.

So there - LOL
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2010 9:20:16 PM

OTOH there's also the issue of AMD changing the Bulldozer date from Q1 2011 to 1H 2011 to just "2011" on the roadmaps. Actually a google search turns up Meyer statements about "ramping up" the first 32nm chips in "mid-2010", but those were dated in early 2009:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090305165448...

Quote:
AMD Re-Schedules Bulldozer Processors to 2011.

AMD’s First “Bulldozer” Named “Orochi” Aimed at 2011

[03/05/2009 04:54 PM]
by Anton Shilov
Advanced Micro Devices on Thursday said that the company had reset plans for the launch if its new micro-architecture code-named Bulldozer and the first truly next-generation processors will only emerge in 2011. This slightly contradicts the optimism caused by comments of the company’s chief executive officer, who promised to “ramp up” the first chips produced at 32nm node in mid-2010.

“Our guidance for the Bulldozer CPU core was reset to expect test silicon in late 2010 and product in 2011,” said Damon Muzny, a spokesperson for AMD, in a brief conversation with X-bit labs.

Dirk Meyer, chief executive officer and president of AMD, said in a recent interview that the company expected to ramp up the manufacturing of central processing units (CPUs) using 32nm process technology sometime in mid-2010. Since Mr. Meyer said back in early 2008 that the first samples of processors featuring code-named Bulldozer micro-architecture will be made using 45nm fabrication process would be out in 2009, the claim regarding the ramp up of chips at 32nm node caused expectations that Bulldozer processors will be out earlier than expected. However, this is not correct.


Also note the revised 2011 roadmap immediately below the quoted portion.

Since there isn't any GPU on the initial (server only) version of BD, but it *will* be on 32nm SOI gate-first HKMG, then that sorta leaves the "first-time fabbing the GPU on HKMG" scenario out in the dark..

Anyway, we're having fun here speculating so don't rain on our parade :D .
m
0
l
September 30, 2010 9:20:39 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
I don't see anything in his statement that denies problems with GF's 32nm node. And XBitlabs hasn't ruled out problems with GF: "Earlier it was expected that AMD will start to ship its Llano accelerated processing units (APUs) for revenue already in Q4 2010 with official product launch taking place sometime very early in 2011. It is not clear whether AMD has problems wedding the Llano design to the 32nm SOI fabrication process, there are issues with the process itself or the design of the Llano has certain flaws."

So, do you work for AMD or GF??


No I don't work for AMD or GF. But, I can read the source Jaydeejohn linked in the OP.

Quote:
Gregg Bartlett, our SVP of technology and R&D, addressed a number of these misconceptions in his presentation at (recent) GTC 2010 (conference). You can see that there are no Vt stability issues and gate-first offers comparable or superior performance when compared to gate-last approaches. Our 32-nm high-k/metal-gate ramp is in early production at Fab 1 and we are confident in our ability to deliver for our customer and maintain our time-to-volume leadership position in the foundry industry. We are currently accepting designs for all of our 28-nm technologies. Multiple customer designs have already been silicon-validated, and many more test chips are in prototyping at Fab 1 on the way to early risk production late this year.''



Also,

Quote:
Samsung Electronics issued this response:

''As you may recall, Samsung announced in early June the full qualification of 32-nm low power high-k metal gate in our S Line. That qual included a full 1000 hr high temp operating life (HTOL) and have experienced no such problems.''


Apparently it all started with some Barclays financial analyst repeating year old "news" about the gate first problems. There are no gate-first problems, it's the superior technology.

Llano is the first GPU ever made by GF, the first GPU ever made with SOI and the first GPU made with HKMG. It's also the first true fusion processor so really its not a surprise to see yield learning issues with it. However, it is sampling and expected in Summer 2011.
m
0
l
September 30, 2010 9:26:53 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
OTOH there's also the issue of AMD changing the Bulldozer date from Q1 2011 to 1H 2011 to just "2011" on the roadmaps. Actually a google search turns up Meyer statements about "ramping up" the first 32nm chips in "mid-2010", but those were dated in early 2009:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090305165448...

Quote:
AMD Re-Schedules Bulldozer Processors to 2011.

AMD’s First “Bulldozer” Named “Orochi” Aimed at 2011

[03/05/2009 04:54 PM]
by Anton Shilov
Advanced Micro Devices on Thursday said that the company had reset plans for the launch if its new micro-architecture code-named Bulldozer and the first truly next-generation processors will only emerge in 2011. This slightly contradicts the optimism caused by comments of the company’s chief executive officer, who promised to “ramp up” the first chips produced at 32nm node in mid-2010.

“Our guidance for the Bulldozer CPU core was reset to expect test silicon in late 2010 and product in 2011,” said Damon Muzny, a spokesperson for AMD, in a brief conversation with X-bit labs.

Dirk Meyer, chief executive officer and president of AMD, said in a recent interview that the company expected to ramp up the manufacturing of central processing units (CPUs) using 32nm process technology sometime in mid-2010. Since Mr. Meyer said back in early 2008 that the first samples of processors featuring code-named Bulldozer micro-architecture will be made using 45nm fabrication process would be out in 2009, the claim regarding the ramp up of chips at 32nm node caused expectations that Bulldozer processors will be out earlier than expected. However, this is not correct.


I'm not sure what you mean by this but Bulldozer is on 32nm, not 45nm. That's old news, Bulldozer was delayed - more like changed to 32nm instead of 45nm -, but not because of GF.

Quote:
Also note the revised 2011 roadmap immediately below the quoted portion.

Since there isn't any GPU on the initial (server only) version of BD, but it *will* be on 32nm SOI gate-first HKMG, then that sorta leaves the "first-time fabbing the GPU on HKMG" scenario out in the dark..

Anyway, we're having fun here speculating so don't rain on our parade :D .



But Bulldozer isn't having any problems, in fact it is sampling soon according to John Fruehe.
m
0
l
September 30, 2010 9:40:29 PM

Thats sorta the way I read it too
The old guard is regurgitating old news.

What Ive read is, it makes for a leaner outcome, as in, smaller, and easier to transition as well, for properly scaled chips.
Now, is this info exclusive to older non HKMG chips only? and not including Intel, and its current HKMG?
This is but one reason to wait and see, and not to put all chips in on the old guard only
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
September 30, 2010 11:07:11 PM

eyefinity said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this but Bulldozer is on 32nm, not 45nm. That's old news, Bulldozer was delayed - more like changed to 32nm instead of 45nm -, but not because of GF.

Quote:
Also note the revised 2011 roadmap immediately below the quoted portion.

Since there isn't any GPU on the initial (server only) version of BD, but it *will* be on 32nm SOI gate-first HKMG, then that sorta leaves the "first-time fabbing the GPU on HKMG" scenario out in the dark..

Anyway, we're having fun here speculating so don't rain on our parade :D .



But Bulldozer isn't having any problems, in fact it is sampling soon according to John Fruehe.


I don't remember the current Bulldozer being slated for 45nm at all. Its possible that the original idea for Bulldozer, which was dropped at one time, was but current Bulldozer is all set and has been for 32nm.

From what I can gather, BD has been delayed more than likley due to the process technology. From all the news we have gotten, BD seems to be fine on the arch side. In fact most of the news we have gotten has been about the arch and not the process which should also be important since its the next step that will lower thermals, power usage and increase performance as well.

Of course you wont hear anything from anyone working on the 32nm HK/MG process claiming it has a problem or is bad. Remember Prescott? Intel knew it wasn't better than Northwood but they would never admit it. AMD knew Phenom I was pretty much crap but they never would admit it.

In the business world you never slander or talk bad about your own product.

I guess we will see in Q1 of 2011 if BD is coming or not.
m
0
l
September 30, 2010 11:15:25 PM

But its different when old claims come about on spurious infos at that, by others/non committed.
Im sure we will hear the story, maybe not in full, but enough to gleen the truth, as to why any delays, and even better, whether itll be just another path,inferior or superior

m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
October 1, 2010 12:02:35 AM

I just go based on what I have seen and from that info from the period when BD was re-announced to now, info has changed. And the arch info has been trikling down much like it always does. But the process info has not.

Thats why I come to the conclusion that IF BD is delayed past Q1 2011 then it is due to the process having either problems or yield issues (which AMD has been known to have yield issues on a new process).
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:07:39 AM

Where did anybody from AMD say Bulldozer was due in Q1 2011?
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:09:47 AM

Thats what I alluded to earlier as well
But beyond this, which isnt my OP, or its thrust, as therell be many things non AMD using this, Samsung as example, are close to ramp.
So, its not waiting for BD thatll tell the story here, or at least fully tell it all.

This could be a smear, truthful, or even set down to laziness, and following the leader
If this approach is good, itll change quite a few things
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:11:09 AM

eyefinity said:
Where did anybody from AMD say Bulldozer was due in Q1 2011?

Depends, if youre using old infos like the naysayers to gate first, then yea
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:18:02 AM

Heres some "facts" concerning release dates

Of course, it's hardly a given that things will go to plan for AMD. After all, this new architecture, known as Bulldozer, was supposed to be on sale last year. At best, we'll see it early in 2011.



Read more: http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/proc...

AMD's Bulldozer has a release date of early 2011
http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardware/articles/60...

Theres others, often alluding to GFs readiness of its 32nm process, and methinks some confuse the two together To my knowledge, AMD have never confirmed dates, at least not in quite awhile, or, as I said, old infos
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:25:18 AM

The general rule is - the further from release, the less accurate the release date is.

That's why reading about "Q1 2011" in 2009 articles doesn't mean anything.

To be fair that also means that AMD should be giving a good target date for Bulldozer now, instead of just "2011".

But as you know, 2011 can still be January 2011. Maybe AMD is keeping it close to their chest, they have done that with the graphics cards so why not cpu's? You can look at it either way but the sensible result is mid-2011 for both bulldozer and llano.
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:32:39 AM

I agree
But as I said, Im thinking we will see gate first before this
Now, we may have to extrapolate perf/thermals/power from other things, but those other things are in areas Intels involved in as well.
Not that itll be a apples to apples, but perf differences will be seen
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:36:43 AM

Sure we'll see gate first before AMD releases Llano or Bulldozer. I'll be surprised if Samsung doesn't release a gate first 32nm chip before the year is out.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see 28nm gate first before AMD release a 32nm gate first chip. That's what I'm saying, it's got nowt to do with gate first.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
October 1, 2010 12:39:08 AM

eyefinity said:
Where did anybody from AMD say Bulldozer was due in Q1 2011?


Hard to find when at work but I remember a few roadmaps that outlined BD for Q1 2011. But that is why I never trust AMDs roadmaps. They tend to change very fast but they have gotten better in the past year or so and hit most of their dates.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/2010092...

This is recent and details that AM3+ should be out in Q2 2011. That would probably mean BD will be near it or follow shortly after it since AM3 CPUs can go into AM3+ but not the other way around. If this is legit though.

Of course its hard to take anything we find on the webs to heart. Some people thought HD6K was coming out this month.
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 12:44:12 AM

"Of course its hard to take anything we find on the webs to heart. Some people thought HD6K was coming out this month. "
For some it has heheh
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
October 1, 2010 12:55:05 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Depends, if youre using old infos like the naysayers to gate first, then yea


I have scoured the web looking for info on BD. It ranges from old to new and som old is the same as new and some old is not.

This alone shows the difference between Intel and AMD. Intel normally gives the info sooner and it stays the same. AMD tends to change it as they go. Understandable since Intel has it all planned out to a 't' while AMD has struggled in the past few years.

But I refuse to just jump on the gate first being great band wagon until I actually see it. As I said, there is a reason as to why Intel bypassed it. Intel bypassed SOI due to the cost and low starting yields. Intel also bypassed gate first for a good reason. AMD may like to take chances but in all honesty, they don't have much room to take those chances right now. If BD performs under SB and yields are not good enough to start it can hurt them.

We will see. Still, if Q1 2011 was the original planned date for 32nm HK/MG BD chips, what would be the reason to delay them? Yield problems or problems with gate first. I am betting the latter but we probably will never know.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
"Of course its hard to take anything we find on the webs to heart. Some people thought HD6K was coming out this month. "
For some it has heheh


But not for us consumers.
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:07:46 AM

I agree jimmy, tho, all Ive heard is the opposite, as in, its a fail, it wont last, its nothing new
It could be all those things or just no better
But, Ive also read where it brings improvements over gate last, and its exciting as its coming close to usage.
If it is better, this means a jump for alot of things, even better than what Intels doing currently, and that is the standard, which no one disagrees with
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 1:18:05 AM

eyefinity said:
No I don't work for AMD or GF. But, I can read the source Jaydeejohn linked in the OP.

Apparently it all started with some Barclays financial analyst repeating year old "news" about the gate first problems. There are no gate-first problems, it's the superior technology.

Llano is the first GPU ever made by GF, the first GPU ever made with SOI and the first GPU made with HKMG. It's also the first true fusion processor so really its not a surprise to see yield learning issues with it. However, it is sampling and expected in Summer 2011.


Well as the saying goes, where there's a lot of smoke, there's bound to be a fire. Anyway, this "old news" was from an IEEE and other articles pointing out various problems that the IBM consortium was having with gate-first. It is the simpler process, but not necessarily the superior one, despite what the GF VP has to say on the subject, since gate-last is optimized for performance rather than surviving the 1000 degree annealing temps. In fact, there were several rumors going around that AMD/GF had asked IBM to look into switching to gate-last, if not for 32nm then for 22nm.

Considering that the VP's job sorta depends on getting 32nm out sometime in the next year, I'd hardly expect him to say anything else other than denial. Just take a look at Toyota, BP, et al initial public denials, a la Baghdad Bob :D .
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:24:15 AM

GF is in competition with TSMC not intel.

For the past year GF has been telling everybody how much better gate first is. The most recent claims suggest 20% smaller die sizes...just due to gate first. That is a huge claim to make.

If it wasn't true why would they risk all of their business making that claim? Surely they could just have said "Gate first is equal to gate last" and everybody would have been happy enough. But GF has been making big claims about gate first.

Why isn't TMSC or intel disagreeing with GF's claims? I can't find anything on the web that says they don't believe it. You should consider what that probably means.
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:27:28 AM

Id heard the rumors were other consortium members, not AMD, and again, it was eumors
This is but another reason for me to more interested than usual, as sometimes rumors are planted
Not saying were/werent, just adds to the larger picture here
If gate first turns out to be a bomb, unlike AMD requiring HKMG on 45nm, then its one less step in the right direction etc, if not, it goes deeper than just a new tech thatll benefit many
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:31:46 AM

I'm not so cautious jaydeejohn. I just look at what GF is saying and it is very clear that gate first is the superior technology in terms of performance, size and wattage. They would never recover from these claims if they weren't true, and I haven't seen TSMC or intel disagree with their claims.

That is not to say that gate first might have other issues, perhaps a slower ramp, higher cost even with lower die size...who knows. Most people would be content with the claims GF is making on gate first being true - it appears to be the best option for performance, and die size. Intel probably went with gate last because it was the best option for the money. None of this should be all that hard to believe for anybody, its just a continuation of what went before.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 1:33:20 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I don't remember the current Bulldozer being slated for 45nm at all. Its possible that the original idea for Bulldozer, which was dropped at one time, was but current Bulldozer is all set and has been for 32nm.


IIRC the first Bulldozer roadmaps appeared in 2005 or maybe 2006, with first chips scheduled for 2008. But BD (and Bobcat) both disappeared off the roadmaps until late 2008 I think, after AMD recovered from the Barcie problems and was about to launch Phenom II.

Quote:
From what I can gather, BD has been delayed more than likley due to the process technology. From all the news we have gotten, BD seems to be fine on the arch side. In fact most of the news we have gotten has been about the arch and not the process which should also be important since its the next step that will lower thermals, power usage and increase performance as well.

Of course you wont hear anything from anyone working on the 32nm HK/MG process claiming it has a problem or is bad. Remember Prescott? Intel knew it wasn't better than Northwood but they would never admit it. AMD knew Phenom I was pretty much crap but they never would admit it.

In the business world you never slander or talk bad about your own product.

I guess we will see in Q1 of 2011 if BD is coming or not.


I found a reference a couple weeks ago where the BD performance predictions (50% more with 33% more cores) were based on simulations and not actual chips. And if you look at the other rumors such as Theo's stating no BD until Q4 of next year, things are starting to look a bit worrisome.

m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:35:21 AM

Tho, there is the yield scenario, but again, that could be many things effecting yield.
Reading into what Samsung has said and claimed, the chips that are here are what theyve been expecting, so yields either point towards the size, design or process
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:36:41 AM

I look at Theo......in others comments/quotes, as I usually dont even bother
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:41:02 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
I found a reference a couple weeks ago where the BD performance predictions (50% more with 33% more cores) were based on simulations and not actual chips. And if you look at the other rumors such as Theo's stating no BD until Q4 of next year, things are starting to look a bit worrisome.


But Leslie Sobon said that Llano will be available in the Summer of 2011. That is 32nm SOI HKMG + graphics.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/llano-bobcat-bulldozer-on...

Quote:
"We are shipping Ontario and Zacate in Q4 this year, and products should hit the shelves early next year," said Sobon. "Llano will start shipping in the first half or 2011, and products should be available in summer 2011.


If you are going to use quotes from sources, you should use all of them to form the true picture instead of the ones that suits your particular wish.

You seem to want to believe that Bulldozer will be Q4 2011 because of GF's supposed "gate first issues", while ignoring the fact that Llano is a much more advanced chip to manufacture but will be ready before Bulldozer will be (by your reckoning).

So is it GF or AMD? Or are you just assuming worst case in every case for AMD? :) 

Quote:
"And let me tell you one thing about Llano, the reaction of all our partners after seeing the demo was, in one word, 'whoa'."


For a chip that doesn't exist, or is crippled with gate first issues, it seems to be doing ok.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
October 1, 2010 1:42:28 AM

eyefinity said:
GF is in competition with TSMC not intel.

For the past year GF has been telling everybody how much better gate first is. The most recent claims suggest 20% smaller die sizes...just due to gate first. That is a huge claim to make.

If it wasn't true why would they risk all of their business making that claim? Surely they could just have said "Gate first is equal to gate last" and everybody would have been happy enough. But GF has been making big claims about gate first.

Why isn't TMSC or intel disagreeing with GF's claims? I can't find anything on the web that says they don't believe it. You should consider what that probably means.


As fazers said, why did Toyota risk their business denying the problem with their cars?

In most cases, a company will not admit to a mistake or that there is a problem. They try to take care of it behind doors or out of the public eye.

http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2010/01/iedm_32nm_and...



http://scsong.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/gate-first-or-ga...

TSMC also switched to gate last. They have been doing GPUs for much longer than GF has and it would come to mind that if some of the largest players in the semicondutor world (TSMC provides more GPU dies than anyone else) are leaning towards gate last there is a pretty good reason.

http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2008/v12i2/1-transi...

Found some more interesting info from Intel on it.
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 1:46:28 AM

jimmysmitty said:
TSMC also switched to gate last. They have been doing GPUs for much longer than GF has and it would come to mind that if some of the largest players in the semicondutor world (TSMC provides more GPU dies than anyone else) are leaning towards gate last there is a pretty good reason.


Yes its the cheap option. Why is this a surprise?

Intel didn't use SOI, didn't use gate first. TSMC didn't either. Guess what, they are the two biggest fabs and it doesn't suit their business model.

It doesn't change the fact that SOI is an improvement and gate first is also an improvement. You need to learn the difference between cheaper and better.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 1:52:19 AM

eyefinity said:
GF is in competition with TSMC not intel.

For the past year GF has been telling everybody how much better gate first is. The most recent claims suggest 20% smaller die sizes...just due to gate first. That is a huge claim to make.

If it wasn't true why would they risk all of their business making that claim? Surely they could just have said "Gate first is equal to gate last" and everybody would have been happy enough. But GF has been making big claims about gate first.

Why isn't TMSC or intel disagreeing with GF's claims? I can't find anything on the web that says they don't believe it. You should consider what that probably means.


That wouldn't be the first time an AMD VP has made outrageous claims that turned out to be false - look at the "40% improvement across a wide variety of workloads" claim for Barcelona just 4 years ago. Now JF says AMD has learned their lesson from that and don't speculate wildly, but that is AMD and maybe not so much GF since GF is out scouring the world for customers and start making a profit. Remember GF is spending many billiions over the next few years building fabs. ATIC is going to want to see some cash flow coming in soon.

IIRC the 20% smaller die size statement by AMD is in reference to TSMC's 28nm, not Intel's 32nm. And when GF is producing AMD's 32nm CPUs, yes they are competing with Intel since if their process is significantly worse than Intel's, the end product won't be as competitive and sales will be hurt (lower yields = higher prices, slower clocks = lower prices, etc).

And IIRC it was TSMC who started much of the "gate-last" vs. "gate-first" superiority stuff last year, alluding to the extra strain factor caused by the dummy gate removal and replacement with the HiK gate. For a strained-silicon process which is what TSMC and Intel use, vs. SOI, that is something like a 30% performance benefit IIRC.

Intel, AFAIK, has been staying out of this debate, at least recently, preferring to concentrate on ramping up their 32nm and bringing 22nm online.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
October 1, 2010 1:58:59 AM

^And you should read the links I posted. They are interesting also.

Wait.... its from Intel. Gotta be lies, right?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 2:04:49 AM

eyefinity said:
But Leslie Sobon said that Llano will be available in the Summer of 2011. That is 32nm SOI HKMG + graphics.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/llano-bobcat-bulldozer-on...

Quote:
"We are shipping Ontario and Zacate in Q4 this year, and products should hit the shelves early next year," said Sobon. "Llano will start shipping in the first half or 2011, and products should be available in summer 2011.


If you are going to use quotes from sources, you should use all of them to form the true picture instead of the ones that suits your particular wish.

You seem to want to believe that Bulldozer will be Q4 2011 because of GF's supposed "gate first issues", while ignoring the fact that Llano is a much more advanced chip to manufacture but will be ready before Bulldozer will be (by your reckoning).


?? Take a chill pill bud - I'm keeping an open mind but also pointing out the various rumors going around. Since I am building a new PC next summer, I'd like to be able to choose whatever is best within my budget. Admittedly I haven't done an AMD build in many years, but I'm willing to give them a chance to prove themselves. And perhaps if enough of us do that, Intel will lower their prices as well so that benefits everybody.

Besides, I did quote the part about Meyer stating Llano was being delayed a few months, due to "yield issues". I don't think anybody here has the time to do all the research to present a complete a picture as we would all like, but if everybody contributes then hopefully one will emerge.

m
0
l
October 1, 2010 2:09:49 AM

“With the gate-last technology, we do have some restrictions. There is difficulty in planarizing it. However, if the layout team is willing to change to a new layout style, then they can get a layout density that is as good as with the gate-first approach. And it is not that difficult,” he said, adding that “everybody — the process people as well as the layout people — need to adjust the way they do things in order to make the products competitive.”
http://scsong.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/gate-first-or-ga...
I guess this isnt the first time a foundry has told its clients they have to change their ways, which means more costs to the devs and clients, with a possible uncertainty of reaching goals.
Its been my experience that when a client follows a fabs recomendations, item for item, they lose perf, and the cheats the clients put in, usually allows for greater perf, with some issues they determine as acceptable
m
0
l
October 1, 2010 3:19:57 AM

Yes the RDR for gate last is one of the main reasons why die sizes are supposedly so much bigger.

Obviously if you have to follow set design rules, something has to give way. I'm still surprised it's as high as 20% GF is claiming, but they seem very confident about it. I just wish they'd hurry the hell up.
m
0
l
!