AMD Reportedly Eyes Samsung Chip Fab Deal in Dual-Source Strategy

News
By
Published

AMD orders 14nm chips from Samsung Foundry.

GlobalFoundries
(Image credit: GlobalFoundries)
19

TSMC remains poised to produce CPUs, GPUs, SoCs, and FPGAs for AMD on its leading-edge fabrication processes for years to come. However, AMD will keep outsourcing production of its older products to GlobalFoundries and Samsung Foundry, according to DigiTimes. Given the current geopolitical situation, one might speculate that the chip designer is exploring SF as a potential alternative not only to GF, but to TSMC as well. 

Older Products for Now

Anton Shilov
Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

19 Comments Comment from the forums
  • -Fran-
    If AMD can strike a deal and source RAM modules so they have a good discount for GPUs and regular RAM, that would help them a lot, I'd say.

    Specially on the HBM side for their Data Center stuff and, maybe, consumer :D

    One can dream :P

    Regards.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    It would be smart business practices especially with China's instability.
    Reply
  • ottonis
    I fully agree with the author. Diversification is mandatory in order to stay safe. Even if it's quite costly, collaborating with Samsung alongside TSMC is a smart and and anticipatory move by AMD not only in case something happens to TSMC but also in order to optimize future products from both sides of the production chain.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    traxxmy said:
    Its USA itself that cause all this chaos and instability when they know they can't compete then they switch to blockage. Whole Asia is quite smart that we distance ourself from the West and time to put greenback behind also

    The use of slave labor, child labor and the murder of protesters by the Chinese Communist Party are good reasons for the world to not conduct business with and to sanction the CCP.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    traxxmy said:
    Its USA itself that cause all this chaos and instability when they know they can't compete then they switch to blockage.
    This explanation doesn't make sense, when you consider that neither Taiwan nor South Korea are being sanctioned, yet both have more advanced semiconductor technology than the US, at present. Furthermore, China does not have the most advanced semiconductors.

    So, perhaps you need to try a little harder to find the reason.
    Reply
  • bit_user said:
    This explanation doesn't make sense, when you consider that neither Taiwan nor South Korea are being sanctioned, yet both have more advanced semiconductor technology than the US, at present. Furthermore, China does not have the most advanced semiconductors.

    So, perhaps you need to try a little harder to find the reason.
    That's a non-sequitur. Nobody claimed that China has the most advanced semiconductors.

    The original claim was that one shouldn't conduct business with China due to its instability.
    The second claim was that China's instability was caused by the USA and their sanctions.

    So, perhaps you need to try a little harder to refute that claim.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Nolonar said:
    That's a non-sequitur. Nobody claimed that China has the most advanced semiconductors.
    The phrase "can't compete" is open to interpretation.

    Nolonar said:
    The original claim was that one shouldn't conduct business with China due to its instability.
    The second claim was that China's instability was caused by the USA and their sanctions.

    So, perhaps you need to try a little harder to refute that claim.
    My response wasn't addressed at claim 1, obviously. I was clearly questioning the rationale put forth as part of claim 2, which you omitted from your summary.

    Moreover, I cited counter-examples where the US hasn't used sanctions against trading partners that are out-competing it. That explanation was clearly too simplistic, yet I'm the one you take issue with?
    Reply
  • Co BIY
    ottonis said:
    I fully agree with the author. Diversification is mandatory in order to stay safe. Even if it's quite costly, collaborating with Samsung alongside TSMC is a smart and and anticipatory move by AMD not only in case something happens to TSMC but also in order to optimize future products from both sides of the production chain.

    Outside of the political, security and human rights issues - which cannot be discussed here without the comments sections getting shut down ...

    Getting three bids for any contract is always a good idea. It follows that it benefits purchasers to ensure that there are at least three providers to deal with.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Co BIY said:
    Getting three bids for any contract is always a good idea. It follows that it benefits purchasers to ensure that there are at least three providers to deal with.
    As the article mentions, the costs of migrating a design from one fab to another are simply massive. That's because each fab uses their own manufacturing process and has their own cell libraries tuned for it. Apparently, these cell libraries aren't just mix-n-match, plus you then have to redo layout. You might think of it like porting an operating system from one ISA (like x86) to another (like ARM). For that reason, chip designers typically chose a fab rather early in the design process and have to live with that decision.

    Lately, there's a trend towards using AI to automate at least the layout portion of chip design. So, that could not only be a huge cost & time-saver, but might also make it easier and cheaper to switch fabs.

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/16836/cadence-cerebrus-to-enable-chip-design-with-ml-ppa-optimization-in-hours-not-months
    Best of all, AI-driven chip layout seems to offer nearly a full node worth of improvement, compared with human-driven layout. For all we know, AMD is in fact using this move to trial these techniques and technology.
    Reply
  • bit_user said:
    The phrase "can't compete" is open to interpretation.
    Hence the "non-sequitur". You jumped to a conclusion that didn't follow from the conversation.

    bit_user said:
    My response wasn't addressed at claim 1, obviously. I was clearly questioning the rationale put forth as part of claim 2, which you omitted from your summary.
    Sorry, but where in my post did I claim you were contesting the first claim rather than the second one? As you said, you obviously contested the second claim.

    And how exactly did I "omit claim 2 from the summary", when it is literally the second point of my summary?

    bit_user said:
    Moreover, I cited counter-examples where the US hasn't used sanctions against trading partners that are out-competing it. That explanation was clearly too simplistic, yet I'm the one you take issue with?
    And how are those counter-examples relevant to the claim you're trying to contest? Just because the USA didn't sanction some countries, it doesn't mean that China's instability is not caused by US sanctions. That's why I called it a non-sequitur.

    But if you so badly want someone to contest your own argument, regardless of whether it is relevant to the discussion or not: China is an economic superpower, like it or not. It is the second-largest one, making up 18.45% of the global economy with a growth of 8.1%, behind the USA's 23.93% and growth of 5.7%. South Korea is only the 10th largest economy and its growth is still behind the USA with 4%. Taiwan isn't even in the top 25. Why would the USA sanction trading partners that aren't even close to threatening its standing as global superpower, when China is "projected to surpass the American economy in the coming few years"?

    And just so there is no misunderstanding between us: I am not claiming that the USA is sanctioning China to maintain its lead as an economic superpower. I am claiming that the USA has more to gain from sanctioning China than from sanctioning South Korea or Taiwan (or both). And that's even without mentioning Capitalism vs Communism.

    If you want to contest that claim, you'll have to show a valid reason why the USA would prefer to sanction South Korea or Taiwan over China.
    Reply