IBM Beats Intel To 7nm Process Thanks To Silicon-Germanium Transistors, EUV Lithography
Intel, which has always been the one to move to a smaller process node technology over the past few decades, has struggled to ship 14nm chips on time, and industry experts believe that the transition to smaller silicon transistors will only become harder from now on.
The use of EUV lithography in a manufacturing plant today is almost as innovative as making 7nm SiGe-based transistors. Chip companies have been researching EUV lithography for years, but it seems IBM and its partners will be the first to start using it in production.
Currently, state of the art lithography has a wavelength that is 193nm wide, which makes it quite difficult to design chips with much smaller transistors. The EUV lithography, on the other hand, has a wavelength of only 13.5nm. EUV lithography is likely still much more expensive to use because it must operate for longer periods of time, and it's sensitive to the smallest vibrations when designing the chips. However, IBM must hope it can reduce the cost by the time 7nm chips are ready to be manufactured in a few years.
IBM is expecting to go beyond 7nm by the end of the decade, but it also recognizes that will be a much harder task:
"Scaling to 7nm and below is a terrific challenge, calling for deep physics competencies in processing nano materials affinities and characteristics. IBM is one of a very few companies who has repeatedly demonstrated this level of science and engineering expertise," said Richard Doherty, technology research director, The Envisioneering Group.
The company believes that new materials, such as carbon nanotubes or graphene, will be necessary to go beyond 7nm. The alternative could be to start developing other types of computers, such as quantum, cognitive or neuromorphic computers.
Although IBM seems to be a pioneer in 7nm chips, the company has already given away its foundry business to Global Foundries. However, IBM will license the 7nm 3rd generation FinFET process technology to Global Foundries, and likely Samsung as well, which should help IBM make enough revenue to continue its research into smaller process nodes and other related technologies.
The first 7nm chips from IBM's partners might not arrive at least until 2018. However, with Intel's 10nm process likely slipping into 2017 and further delaying its own 7nm process, it's possible the first 7nm chips to ship on the market won't be from Intel this time around.
Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.
You'd Also Like
7nm makes me wonder if someone sneezing in the next room might knock the equipment out of alignment...
I am wanting to know how they are handling, or how their new materials will handle, the core degradation issue Intel was talking about as the smaller nodes will suffer from more wear/tear due to the smaller traces. Maybe SiGe will handle it better, I know even Intel was looking into new materials beyond 10nm and SiGe was one of them.
I guess it all depends on when it launches and how well it performs and what Intels answer will be. I imagine Intel is already working 7nm and looking at other materials as well.
Intel demonstrated ALUs working at 8-10GHz 10-12 years ago yet we still do not have practical CPUs operating at more than 5GHz today.
Not all demonstrations turn into practical and economically viable processes.
Pretty much.
And the other question is, is this even the right path to follow? Are there other solution paths that will be better for the medium term? There are parallels with hard drives; rather than increase platter density, they added more platters, and then they developed RAID.
AMD needs to get to 16/14nm first. You think Intel will just sit back? Everyone is waiting for EUV.
IBM is sharing their process research with GloFo and Samsung, which means GloFo should be in a decent position to catch up with Intel a bit over the next few years. We can only hope Zen will deliver on the hype when AMD does gain access to 14nm next year.
Because nobody will buy a $10,000.00 video card.
Folks would love to look at stacks of cash.
But yes, it is a picture for plebs.
While I'll buy that a 22 nm might cost more, I don't see it being *that* much more, in an environment where 22 nm fabrication was mature. You should see notable power consumption reductions and better yields per wafer (eventually) from the smaller size.
That said: I do think the early 7 nm stuff may carry a price premium on this order. In part, because of the significant technical issues, and in part because there isn't enough competition unless AMD can show the technical prowess to reduce to at least 14 nm. I do think we will see 7 nm...eventually....but the time lines may be optimistic.
The 22nm process was developed by Intel for CPUs not GPUs. Processes are typically specialized for certain applications by the company, hence why NAND flash RAM is at a different size than CPUs and GPUs would have gone to 20nm not 22nm.
He was also talking about a 7nm GPU which right now the yields of a 7nm CPU/GPU are probably 0 since this is just SRAM not an actual CPU.
Process geometry size and process specialization (RAM, GPU, CPU, NAND, etc.) are two separate issues. Intel has at least two different 22nm setups: one for desktop chips and one for laptop/SoC chips. The desktop one is tuned for high clock speeds while the mobile one is tuned for lowest possible power. IIRC, TSMC also has different fab setups for GPUs for high density and low leakage to accommodate the massive transistor counts at the expense of clock rates. DRAM processes are tweaked for extremely low leakage and high dielectric constant to minimize capacitor cell size. Etc.
The existence of a 20nm process used mostly in conjunction with RAM/NAND is purely coincidental.
That is pretty much what I was getting at, that the 22nm process Intel has is not geared towards GPUs and the current 7nm IBM has is not geared towards anything yet nor do we know the viability of it yet.
http://www.news.gatech.edu/2014/02/17/silicon-germanium-chip-sets-new-speed-record
Well AMD doesnt manufacture chips anymore soooo your comment doesnt really make sense. They hire out to 3rd party fabs just like all of the other fabless companies. When a 14nm process is available in high quantities with high yields, we will see 16/14nm C/GPU's on the market.
If there was low volume it would certainly cost that much. Actual production cost is often only a big factor in first generation productions, afterwards it's all about R&D and scaling costs. The 28nm node is very mature, meaning the software design libraries are well developed, the production stations have since amortized their capital costs, and the limits of the process are so well known that workarounds can be done with little risk. There is a huge preexisting industrial capacity to produce products on that node and thus supply shortages aren't a factor. So ultimately it's much cheaper to make products on the 28nm node them to try jumping to a new node before it's fully matured.
Now couple that with the fact that most profit isn't realized in super high end / high cost / low volume products but instead in mass selling of low cost / high volume products. When people don't want to spend more then $150~200 for a CPU, nor more then $200~300 for a GPU, it's really hard justifying a design jump that would result in people needing to spend $600~900 USD per GPU in order to break even on the costs of developing the technology to make those GPUs.
So now we have the entire industry waiting for a stable process that's cheap enough they can all jump on and spread the R&D costs around. Intel doesn't count because any developments they do, they keep close to their chests. Your really left with Intel on one side and everyone else, including IBM, on the other.