Isn't it the first time for all? It's not like they share with others.
This isn't the warp drive from out of nowhere, or like how the EM drive arrived. Everyone in the industry is aware of the potential benefits of Cobalt.Even if you don't know the details its a quite enormous help to know you're trying to do the right thing
Are you saying this a good decision or a poorly thought out one? Seems like overreach to me. For certain, they're paying a heavy price.First time for what? Cobalt? Yes, though it seems Intel decided to use it quite a bit more which will effect yields negatively. AFAIK SAQP is new to both GloFo and Intel, but I think yet again Intel used it in more areas than GloFo, yet again effecting yields negatively.
First time for what? Cobalt? Yes, though it seems Intel decided to use it quite a bit more which will effect yields negatively. AFAIK SAQP is new to both GloFo and Intel, but I think yet again Intel used it in more areas than GloFo, yet again effecting yields negatively.
Are you saying this a good decision or a poorly thought out one? Seems like overreach to me. For certain, they're paying a heavy price.
Yeah it looks like Intel bit off a bit more than they could chew.
1. Cobalt contacts, metal layers M0,M1 and cobalt cap for copper interconnect M2-M5
2. SAQP for lowest metal layers.
3. Single Dummy gate
4. Contact over Active Gate.
Anyway this experience at 10nm will make them be a bit more conservative at future nodes.
As they say, go big or go home
Basically Intel was more aggressive. The aggression didn't pay off.First time for what? Cobalt? Yes, though it seems Intel decided to use it quite a bit more which will effect yields negatively. AFAIK SAQP is new to both GloFo and Intel, but I think yet again Intel used it in more areas than GloFo, yet again effecting yields negatively.
Well, Intel is technically trying to do 7nm with cobalt now, since their 10nm is like everyone else's 7nm.Later? Sure. Often dropping the baton loses the race.
I don't think we know yet if it will pay off.Basically Intel was more aggressive. The aggression didn't pay off.
The delays to 10nm are going to hurt Intel a lot in the short term till 2020/2021. Long term we have to wait and see how things play out.I don't think we know yet if it will pay off.
Intel went from a few years lead from other foundries (not in names but in actual density and performance) to being on par with others. 10nm already lost them that. By the time we will see HVM 10nm products, TSMC will already be in HVM of their equally dense 7nm.I don't think we know yet if it will pay off.
Intel's 14nm Skylake released in late 2015. Other foundries 10nm just caught up with its density using their 10nm. The first product with 10nm was Galaxy S8 released in April 2017. That's a very large lead whatever way you slice it.I never thought Intel really had the 3 year lead it claimed to have, or whatever it was, exactly.
I agree.Intel went from a few years lead from other foundries (not in names but in actual density and performance) to being on par with others. 10nm already lost them that. By the time we will see HVM 10nm products, TSMC will already be in HVM of their equally dense 7nm.
Whatever damage it might do or if it will be successful doesn't change the massive loss in time to market lead.
Intel's 14nm Skylake released in late 2015. Other foundries 10nm just caught up with its density using their 10nm. The first product with 10nm was Galaxy S8 released in April 2017. That's a very large lead whatever way you slice it.
I don't buy into the 3 years lead marketing either, but there was a lead.
ntel 10nm is broken according to charlie of semiaccurate. We need to wait and see when 10+ arrives and if it fixes the issues at Intel 10. Intel's recent slides with 10++ bringing a rearchitected metal stack lends further evidence that something was badly messed at 10. It could be the aggressive use of cobalt, SAQP for lowest metal layers or just the sheer complexity of multiple first time technologies at Intel (Contact Over Active Gate, Single dummy gate along with the above mentioned features) not working well together or being very hard to yield.
I think Intel went all-in with their 10nm node, thinking they have enough time to spare should anything go wrong.Yeah, I'd bet that it was a combination of issues given the amount of time Intel is taking to resolve the problem.
yeah in hindsight it looks to have been a poor decision. GF saying sticking with copper/low k for metal interconnect layers brings reliability benefits in the form of reduced complexity and yield risk seems to indicate that the aggressive use of cobalt is probably causing yield challenges at Intel 10nm.
I think Intel went all-in with their 10nm node, thinking they have enough time to spare should anything go wrong.
Well, and here we have it.
They will probably still be tops in electrostatics, but lose most of their density lead due competitors catching up (no that x86 CPUs are optimal for comparing density).
Business as usual for them, then, after a brief density lead.
You forgot time to market.Good point. Sadly, most of the process focus is on density. While important, the other side of the coin is xtor performance and perf/watt.