AMD/ATI Confirms TSMC Supply Problems for 5XXX

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

bout 10yrs from now, we'll be reading how nvidia settles out of court to AMD/ATI for paying off TSMC to hinder 58xx sales

 

[Idontcare]

Another interesting bullet point is how they say TSMC has, once again, solved their 40nm manufacturing problems and production has ramped up. They also say that TSMC has new machines since September and that production is now starting to come online. The new machines are probably a major reason for the production of 5800's to go from a few thousand a week to tens of thousands per week.

I'm reading the HardOCP article but I am not seeing anything stating yields have improved. What am I missing?

Only thing I've read about TSMC's 40nm yields this week are these:

TSMC 40nm yields are at 50 percent

Industry sources have confirmed Fudzilla that TSMC’s 40nm process is definitely far from the numbers they should be hitting. It’s been more than a year, probably even year and a half since TSMC started 40nm test production, and even today their yields are extremely poor.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16421/1/

Analysts: TSMC still faces 40-nm problems

Reports surfaced that TSMC is having issues with its ion implanter supplier, causing a shortfall of 40-nm parts.

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=221600707

TSMC: 40-nm yields will improve

Silicon foundry giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC) claims that its 40-nm yields will improve by early 2010.

In response to the reports, TSMC officials said: ''The 40-nm yield didn't drop as reported. As a matter of fact, yield on the 40-nm process remained flat. TSMC is confident that the 40-nm yield will improve at the beginning of next year.''

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=221600875

 

[Idontcare]

bout 10yrs from now, we'll be reading how nvidia settles out of court to AMD/ATI for paying off TSMC to hinder 58xx sales

guy1: per...
guy2: ice...
guy3: less!

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTRY B 529th FA BN View Post
bout 10yrs from now, we'll be reading how nvidia settles out of court to AMD/ATI for paying off TSMC to hinder 58xx sales
guy1: per...
guy2: ice...
guy3: less!

edit: sigh, i can't quote worth dookie with this vb thing yet

 

[akugami]

@IDC


Xbitlabs

EE Times Asia

These two articles suggest the yields are fixed and it is another issue affecting production.

Sometimes I get my info mixed up or it might be missing cause I might read about something and not post it a few days later. Either way, the 40nm issues are affecting both nVidia and ATI.

 

[Idontcare]

@IDC


Xbitlabs

EE Times Asia

These two articles suggest the yields are fixed and it is another issue affecting production.

Sometimes I get my info mixed up or it might be missing cause I might read about something and not post it a few days later. Either way, the 40nm issues are affecting both nVidia and ATI.

The xbitlabs link is a rehash of the EETimes article I linked above, and your EETimes Asia article requires login to view for some reason so I'm guessing its a bad link but probably says the same thing as my EETimes links.

That said, I believe you are getting the semantics mixed up here. TSMC is saying yield never dropped, which isn't the same thing as saying the currently dismal low yield numbers have been resolved and now yields are above the 80% entitlement levels.

Everything I have read so far speaks to low 40nm yields, no one is saying they have deteriorated per say, but everyone is saying they aren't where they were promised to be by TSMC going back months ago.

What perked my ears up when I read your post was that you said HardOCP is claiming the yields problems are solved which is a word I can't find anybody using outside your post, not in your HardOCP link nor any of the EETimes links. I'm not trying to come down on you about this, I was really hoping good news was out there and I had missed it.

Suffice to say I'm not seeing any good news here. Am I wrong?

 

[akugami]

Yep, bad news for both ATI and nVidia either way.

 

[Fox5]

Perhaps next time they (nvidia aswell) should be looking to Global Foundries and not TSMC...?

Oh yeah, because AMD had a great record of getting products out on time and in volume.

Then again, they have had 45nm working in volume for longer than TSMC's equivalent.

 

[soccerballtux]

NVidia disabled ATI Manufacturing in their Process Drivers.

Damn you NNNNNNNVIIIIIIIDDDIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! Damn you to HELL!

The way it's meant to be fab'd.

 

[bryanW1995]

I think we'll be seeing a light at the end of the tunnel soon according to this HardOCP article. At least as far as 5800 series card availability.

Looking at the bullet points, it's surprising how little cards have shipped. The good thing is TSMC seems to have gotten their crap together and ATI expects "tens of thousands" of cards to ship per week in late November. I think we'll see most of the pent up demand alleviated in early December. But for now it seems you guys looking for cards will still have to do some scrounging.

Another interesting bullet point is how they say TSMC has, once again, solved their 40nm manufacturing problems and production has ramped up. They also say that TSMC has new machines since September and that production is now starting to come online. The new machines are probably a major reason for the production of 5800's to go from a few thousand a week to tens of thousands per week.

So this bodes well for anyone looking for 5800 cards next month but you still seem to be SOL if you're looking for one in the next 2-3 weeks.

For ATI, this is not the best situation to be in, being supply constrained, when you have your competitor in a "Johnny come lately" status but at least they will still have some time before nVidia comes out with Fermi.

tsmc's yield problems should also end up delaying fermi. nvidia can't trouble shoot if tsmc can't reliably build their chips.

 

[Acanthus]

I would imagine Nvidia is having the same problems.

Yup, and Fermi is a much larger chip, so the problem is magnified.

 

[Acanthus]

Not to derail the thread about TSMC... but the Intel - AMD settlement will likely open up the field for nVidia to use Global Foundries in the future. AMD can now go completely fabless and does not have to own a majority stake in Global Foundries to produce x86 chips there.

Time will tell if AMD holds on to their interest in Global Foundries or if they dump the stock.

 

[ronnn]

tsmc's yield problems should also end up delaying fermi. nvidia can't trouble shoot if tsmc can't reliably build their chips.

Why? Seems yields have been good enough for ati to debug at least 3 chips.

 

[jvroig]

I don't see how yield problems would affect debugging. It's a huge problem for satiating a hungry market, but when your "market" is your tech department, I don't see it.

If someone here knows better, now's the best time to chime in.

 

[Idontcare]

Yields aren't a big deal for design verification/validation provided obviously that the yield isn't zero and the design guys can get back enough samples to populate their testers and get things going.

That said there really is a crazy amount of things that need to be tested and verified with new designs, not just the question of does the math work properly (does 1+1=2) but also the lifetime stability testing as well.

So yes in a sample shortage situation after tapeout if yields are low then the scale and scope of the validation work is pruned back per priorities but that comes with the penalty of lengthening the verification timeline as they have fewer samples to work with while waiting to get more samples back from the fab.

In a well run fab this is transparent to the customer (be it external like NV/TSMC or internal like Intel) as the fab's resource planning and wafer start team factors in all the needs of the customer as well as risks that could jeopardize the fab's ability to meet those needs prior to determining how many wafers are to be started and allocated to the particular device in question.

 

[FrgMstr]

What perked my ears up when I read your post was that you said HardOCP is claiming the yields problems are solved which is a word I can't find anybody using outside your post, not in your HardOCP link nor any of the EETimes links. I'm not trying to come down on you about this, I was really hoping good news was out there and I had missed it.

I wrote the HardOCP article and I don't remember reporting any yield issues being solved.

 

[akugami]

I wrote the HardOCP article and I don't remember reporting any yield issues being solved.

I think that was a mixup on my part from reading different articles and mixing my sources. Happens.

 

[Idontcare]

I wrote the HardOCP article and I don't remember reporting any yield issues being solved.

Hi Kyle, thanks for confirming/clarifying.