China-made DDR5 memory chips use less advanced chipmaking technology — chips are nearly 40% larger than Samsung's DDR5

CXMT DRAM
(Image credit: CXMT)

Recently, it turned out that China-based memory maker ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) began to ship DDR5 memory chips. However, according to the findings of a Chinese semiconductor researcher, the die size of CXMT's 16 Gb DDR5 memory IC is 40% larger than that of a competing Samsung chip, which means that it is significantly more expensive to build due to the use of less advanced chipmaking technology. Of course, since the information comes from an unofficial source, take it with a grain of salt, but the technician does deconstruct the DRAM module on video, lending credence to the findings.  

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Tom's HardwareCXMT 16 Gb DDR5 dieSamsung 16 Gb DDR5 die
Square mm68.06 mm^248.90 mm^2
Die dimensions8.25 × 8.25 mm6.46 × 7.57 mm

CXMT's 16 Gb DDR5 die measures 8.25 × 8.25 mm; therefore, its die size is 68.06 mm^2. By contrast, a modern Samsung 16 Gb DDR5 die measures 6.46 × 7.57 mm and has a die size of 48.90 mm^2. 

When Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix began to mass produce 16 Gb DDR5 memory chips in 2021, their die size varied from 66.26 mm^2 to 72.21 mm^2 (according to TechInsights), but all DRAM makers have shrunk their DDR5 die sizes over time. 

CXMT's 16 Gb DDR5 die size is comparable to first-generation DDR5 chips from leading memory makers. Assuming that CXMT's yields are also comparable to those of Micron, Samsung, and SK Hynix in 2021, then CXMT's costs are also comparable to those of these companies some four or five years ago. 

That said, CXMT's DDR5 costs are likely considerably higher than those of Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix today, so it remains to be seen whether the company will be able to compete against its rivals in terms of pricing. We can only wonder whether CXMT will be able to sell its DDR5 with significant discounts to grab market share from its competitors. 

A relatively large die size of CXMT's DDR5 memory chips also indicates that the company uses a process technology years behind those used by its competitors, which isn't particularly surprising. Despite this, CXMT's partners produce DDR5-6000 memory sticks, which indicates the fairly high performance potential of the company's DDR5 ICs. Nonetheless, for now, the leading makers of DRAM are ahead of CXMT in terms of performance, power efficiency, and cost efficiency.

TOPICS
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.

  • hwertz
    I assume you are joking about the 'can trhe compete on pricing' part. The RAM makers have been running a cartel for decades, paying price fixing fines every couple years from the massive profits on RAM and SSD storage. Of course CXMT can compete om pricing.
    Reply
  • usertests
    the die size of CXMT's 16 Gb DDR5 memory IC is 40% larger than that of a competing Samsung chip, which means that it is significantly more expensive to build due to the use of less advanced chipmaking technology.
    If the less advanced node is cheaper, that could balance out the larger die sizes. Having them larger and less power efficient is not desirable though.

    Maybe the node is very expensive from using quadruple-patterning DUV instead of EUV or something. Cost issues can be forgiven if it can act as a reliable domestic supply of DRAM.
    Reply
  • thth
    It is expected, given that CXMT's process node for DDR5 is estimated to be 17.5nm to 18nm, whereas Samsung currently uses an EUV based 12nm process. However, they managed to make it smaller and faster than Samsung's first generation DDR5
    Reply
  • 4m12020
    This held grudge has no truth to it. It’s been a very long time since the collusion and they get sued every few years and the charges are dropped for lack of evidence
    Reply
  • 4m12020
    usertests said:
    If the less advanced node is cheaper, that could balance out the larger die sizes. Having them larger and less power efficient is not desirable though.

    Maybe the node is very expensive from using quadruple-patterning DUV instead of EUV or something. Cost issues can be forgiven if it can act as a reliable domestic supply of DRAM.
    Less advanced larger nodes are always more expensive than smaller nodes.
    Reply
  • usertests
    4m12020 said:
    Less advanced larger nodes are always more expensive than smaller nodes.
    Not true, cost per transistor has stagnated.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/chips-arent-getting-cheaper-the-cost-per-transistor-stopped-dropping-a-decade-ago-at-28nm
    Reply
  • pug_s
    thth said:
    It is expected, given that CXMT's process node for DDR5 is estimated to be 17.5nm to 18nm, whereas Samsung currently uses an EUV based 12nm process. However, they managed to make it smaller and faster than Samsung's first generation DDR5
    https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/chips-arent-getting-cheaper-the-cost-per-transistor-stopped-dropping-a-decade-ago-at-28nm
    It is not like CXMT can buy EUV Litography machines anyways so they probably counldn't make it in a lower process anyways. Also, the cost per transistor basically was at its lowest at 28nm.
    Reply
  • nrdwka
    usertests said:
    Not true, cost per transistor has stagnated.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/chips-arent-getting-cheaper-the-cost-per-transistor-stopped-dropping-a-decade-ago-at-28nm
    After re-reading the article, it stated what the cost for new nodes is stagnating or even increasing .

    But total cost for older nodes can become cheaper.
    Does this ddr5 prod build with used or new lito machines?
    Does the yeld is better due to optimized for years manufacturing for older nodes (and that is common thing for more mature nodes)?

    There is not enough info to make a conclusion on the subject of cost.

    It is not for no reason many electronics a produced on older nodes, and many are bigger than 28nm.
    Reply
  • genz
    usertests said:
    If the less advanced node is cheaper, that could balance out the larger die sizes. Having them larger and less power efficient is not desirable though.

    Maybe the node is very expensive from using quadruple-patterning DUV instead of EUV or something. Cost issues can be forgiven if it can act as a reliable domestic supply of DRAM.
    The first paragraph is all I care about. Being able to make DDR5 on a less advanced and thus cheaper node is an innovation that should have been pursued by Western DDR5 makers a long time ago but nooo, they wanted to price gouge instead. Go China.... Lol. Someone has to fix this mess before AM4 goes out of production.
    Reply
  • mitch074
    pocketdrummer said:
    This is where the state-sponsored hacking groups come in to steal all of the data on how Samsung did it, then they'll subsidize everything and drive everyone out of business.

    We should just have a blanket 50-100% tax on every Chinese company at this point to offset the R&D costs they skipped over.
    And who will pay for it ? The US end user. In China ? No tax. In the rest of the world ? Nothing either.
    This is a protectionist measure, and like most of them, will soon be counterproductive.
    All it shows is that China can produce the latest DDR tech 100% domestically. Is it more expensive ? Yes. Does it keep that spent money inside the country ? That too. Does it allow forms of subsides ? Definitely.
    Is it illegal ? Well, Boeing still exists because of this, so... Yes.
    Does it allow cost effective R&D ? Sure does ! But note, unlike the USSR that stole R&D piecemeal and copied it without making sure it actually worked (Concordski) , the Chinese actually do excellent work at reverse engineering stuff, copying it properly and selling equivalent if not better stuff than the original for cheaper.
    This is a form of 'innovation' that Edison revelled in, Bill Gates built his empire on, Steve Jobs was better than Bill at, and Musk is trying his bestest best at making the only legal way of innovating so pot, this is kettle.
    Reply